Re: The state of suburban theology

Steve,
    I respect the concerns expressed in your comments below, but I think
that the materialists have their own form of fideism they might well take a
look at.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Petermann" <steve@spetermann.org>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Howard J. Van Till"
<hvantill@sbcglobal.net>; "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: The state of suburban theology

> George wrote:
> > It isn't surprising that virtually all views of divine action -
> > process, Neo-Thomist and the others Barbour describes - depend heavily
on
> > _metaphors_ like worker & tool, persuasion, soul & body, &c. I.e., we
use
> > our understanding of the way things interact in the world to try to get
> some
> > grasp of the way God acts in the world, but since God _isn't_ simply
part
> of
> > the world, such descriptions fall short of a detailed analysis of the
> > "casual joint." & maybe that's the best we can do.
>
>
> I'm sure for many people it is enough just to stick with the high level
> metphors. However, judging from the increased interest in science and
> religion, it would seem that there is a growing number who critically
> embrace religious sentiment but also look for some level of consilience
> between the faith and science. Since divine action is a center piece of
many
> theologies, it will also seem a focal point for deep explication. While
some
> level of metaphor may end up being "the best we can do" one wonders if
> metphors like those you mentioned are totally immune to some level of
> reduction that can find a reasonably happy relationship with science.
Also
> if an attempt at this is not undertaken I don't know how the faithful will
> be armed against the continued accusations of fideism from the
materialists.
> How should these suburbans be armed for this issue?
>
> Steve Petermann
>
>
>
Received on Tue Jun 15 16:09:20 2004