Re: God and nature; miracles

Date: Tue May 20 2003 - 11:21:02 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Books on history and philosophy of science"

    Thank you. I guess there really is no way around really studying
    theology even as a scientist.

    you wrote:
    So I contend for traditional orthodox theology (_sensu strictu_). The
    omnipotent, omniscient, eternal Creator is fully competent to produce
    creatures with moral freedom.

    Just a comment,

    Recently, I decided to go through a theology course on comparative
    religions. At least with the course materials we were given, I have come
    to the impression that the extremes revolve around a dialog based approach
    which has basically dominated the Japanese theology for one example, and
    the liberation theologies of various forms. Both have some troublesome
    problems, but they also have some good points.

    At the risk of being accused of being a bit pomo, in some respects, I am
    beginning to see that the current interest in "dialog" between science
    and religion has some parallels. There is a culture that comes with
    science. It has a very precise language and there are rules of engagement.
    For finding out about the facts and nature of material, science does a
    very good job. But "there are more things between heaven and earth
    than [our] philosophies".

    So for good or for bad, I have begun to see that process theology (PT)
    is in the "dialog" camp, where the intention is to engage the atheist,
    much the same way as one might use the koan as a starting point of
    dialog with the Zen Buddhist on Christianity.

    I definitely agree that there are problems with process theology when
    you read Romans 8:29ff, and I think I can see what you mean by
    category mistakes. Actually, the resurrection may be even more difficult
    to deal with consistently from a PT angle. On the other hand,
    it seems like for the scientist who sometimes must dialog with the
    atheist, we have few options that provide us with a common language.
    Basically, there is PT, and strict concordism although my ignorance
    abounds here since I realize that I am illiterate here. Likewise, by
    agreeing to submit to a maximal materialist vocabulary, we run the
    risk that the inspiration gets twisted out.

    So I am left with a quandary. I don't expect you to answer me
    here, of course. Somehow, I just feel I have to say this anyway.

    By Grace alone we proceed,

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 20 2003 - 11:21:35 EDT