From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 14:41:54 EDT
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 <steve@spetermann.org> 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
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 19 2003 - 14:42:16 EDT