Re: Strange Bedfellows, Atheism and Naturaistic Theism

From: Steve Petermann (
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 15:05:57 EDT

  • Next message: Terry M. Gray: "Re: Strange Bedfellows, Atheism and Naturaistic Theism"

    Terry wrote:
    > It needs to be emphasized that we're doing theology here. And once
    > again, theological method becomes the critical issue. Are we rooted
    > in scripture which at the same time affirms God's control over all
    > things and his omniscient foreknowledge AND genuine creaturely action
    > and the responsibility of free agents? Or are we dismissing the
    > message that comes from scripture because we can't see how to relate
    > the two ideas and thus we deny one or the other as something other
    > than scripture becomes the controlling element in our theology
    > (elimination of antimony, creaturely autonomy/free will, etc.)?

    You raise an important point for the science and religion dialogue. *Is*
    there are controlling force in the dialogue. If that controlling force is
    scripture, then who's take on scripture? Obviously there are a wide range
    of opinions on how scripture should be used and interpreted.

    Let's face it. Both modern science and philosophy have created deep
    conflicts with all traditional religions. If both religion an science are
    not willing to take a fresh look at their presuppositions then there really
    isn't anything new to address. The main question for Christianity, in my
    view, is whether or not its core principals will be compelling to the people
    as a modern and scientifically oriented worldview sweeps the globe.

    Steve Petermann

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 15 2003 - 15:08:17 EDT