Re: Fragility and tendentiousness

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Sat Sep 20 2003 - 14:47:29 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: royalty"

    Spong like other liberals eg Hick, Cupitt, Badham has totally swallowed the
    conflict thesis of science and religion and try to prove or rather assert
    that all Christians up to Darwin were literalists. They talk historical
    nonsense and destroy their case.

    Peacocke does not do this although he ends up or starts with a liberal
    version of Christianity. As a historical fact in the 50s Peacocke went to
    ask my uncle Grenville Yarnold, who was one of the few in the Church of
    England doing science and religion advice on how to start. I dont think
    Peacocke has a strong enough understanding of what redemption in Christ is
    as atonement scarcely figures in his theology. Arthur would give an equally
    robust critique of me for being too biblicist as he has often done to my

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Dr. Blake Nelson" <>
    To: "Steve Petermann" <>
    Cc: <>; <>
    Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 7:41 PM
    Subject: Re: Fragility and tendentiousness

    > Steve,
    > I would assert that Spong, having read some of his
    > writings, is an example of the problem with uncritical
    > thinking about a "scientific" worldview. Spong's
    > views in my opinion misrepresents (or is simply
    > ignorant of) what a scientific worldview is and Spong
    > appears to misunderstand science very badly.
    > Peacocke and Barbour while both going farther to
    > different degrees in rejection of some aspects of
    > traditional christian theology at least know what
    > science is and isn't. Spong, with his assertions
    > about, inter alia, the resurrection just not being
    > palatable to modern "scientific" understandings of the
    > world is simply ignorant of what science and can or
    > cannot say about a unique historical event that
    > christian theology treats as a unique event.
    > I don't see Dawkins or Crick or Provine or Sagan or
    > others who say that science invalidates religion on
    > any surer footing as the 19th and early 20th century
    > challenges of Freud, Marx, Feuerbach, Neitzche. In
    > fact, I find them more naive since they seem to have
    > little to no philosophical understanding of issues
    > that have been present with christianity for two
    > millenia.
    > I tend to think that someone like Hans Kung is perhaps
    > more useful for seekers to read in understanding the
    > philosophical underpinnings of christianity versus
    > other worldviews. The "scientific worldview", as in
    > the renegade logical positivism, is simply wrongheaded
    > and is built on a lot of handwaving about or simply
    > ignoring questions of ontology. Rather than pay
    > homage to the efficacy of science in so many areas by
    > assuming that it has an accurate description of all
    > reality, I think it is more fruitful to realize the
    > handwaving underlying a "scientific worldview" in that
    > sense. Ironically, the "scientific worldview" IMO is
    > vastly incomplete, relying on a small area of efficacy
    > to make emotive claims of omnicompetence.
    > At the end of the day, I think Kung is right that your
    > choices are nihilism or theism if you follow through
    > the consquences of various worldviews. Now, the
    > scientific worldview is thoroughly supported within a
    > christian worldview, but it is not thoroughly
    > supported without a theistic basis -- at which point
    > you simply say this just is, it works, and we are not
    > making any claims to anything more grand. But that is
    > not the sense in which I think you mean a scientific
    > worldview. If that was all the scientific worldview
    > that you are talking about was, it would pose no
    > threat for christianity and would not lead to people
    > leaving the faith.
    > --- Steve Petermann <> wrote:
    > > Dave wrote:
    > > > I am guessing that the major reason why
    > > "intelligentsia" reject
    > > > Christianity is that it is not PC.
    > (SNIP)
    > > These
    > > people are among what I all the intelligentsia,
    > > educated, thoughtful,
    > > critically thinking individuals. They are not
    > > interested in being PC. They
    > > are interested in a well reasoned faith. They are
    > > reading Borg, Spong,
    > > Barbour, Peacocke, etc. Why would they do that if
    > > they aren't questioning?
    > __________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 20 2003 - 14:46:13 EDT