Re: [asa] Theology of Nature

Hi all,

Murray wrote:
"McGrath looks at the various ways the
> idea of nature has been defined and appropriated - showing
> that it ISN'T a value neutral term - let alone one with
> an obvious meaning. One of his major points is that the very
> idea of "nature" has always been a social
> construct"

Indeed. Another book that may be of interest is Roderick Nash's "Wilderness & the American Mind". I read it during college and found it fascinating. The idea that "nature" or "wilderness" is a social construct was new to me then, and very eye-opening. The book itself isn't strictly theological, though at various points Nash does discuss how early American settlers' Christianity affected their views of the natural world, and also later on how this changed during the early 1900s. More generally, it's a very good history of the environmental movement in the United States, if anyone's looking to learn more about it.

In Christ,
Christine (ASA member)

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org

--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote:

> From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Theology of Nature
> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 4:07 PM
> Hi Greg,
>
> As Ted says, excellent questions.
>
> Alister McGrath has given the idea of "nature" a
> fair bit of thought and you might find his trilogy "A
> Scientific Theology" of interest. At the very least,
> I'm not sure you could credibly engage with the idea of
> a theology of nature without reference to McGrath - it might
> even require a MAJOR engagement.
>
> Ted, incidentally, made reference to Thomas Torrance.
> He's a very important contributor and one whom McGrath
> engages with at depth.
>
> In the first volume of "A Scientific Theology"
> ("Nature") McGrath looks at the various ways the
> idea of nature has been defined and appropriated - showing
> that it ISN'T a value neutral term - let alone one with
> an obvious meaning. One of his major points is that the very
> idea of "nature" has always been a social
> construct so there can never be a strictly objective appeal
> to "nature". Note that McGrath isn't arguing
> for an anti-scientific or anti-realist view - quite the
> opposite, in fact, as he's arguing that appeal to
> "nature" is inherently anti-realist as the concept
> "nature" (not the concept "reality") is
> socially constructed.
>
> If you'd like a precis of his views try his little
> (compared with the trilogy!) book "The Science of
> God" - which is an abridged version of the trilogy
> written by McGrath himself.
>
> For an even shorter summary/intro again, you might try the
> following (a piece for which McGrath has expressed praise on
> more than one occassion);
>
> Benjamin Myers, “Alister McGrath’s Scientific
> Theology.” Reformed Theological Review 64 (2005): 15-34.
>
> There is what seems to me a quality summary and review of
> "Vol 1. Nature" on the Ars Disputandi site;
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5cr34q
>
> And, of course, Google will give you a fair few more -
> although, obviously you'll get a variation in quality.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray Hogg
> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
>
> Gregory Arago wrote:
> > Hi Ted,
> >
> > Following on one of your recent responses to Timaeus
> (which mentioned H.
> > Bergson), a thought crossed my mind that has not yet
> ceased. So, I
> > express it here below:
> >
> > How can there be a ‘theology of nature’? We see
> many cases where/when
> > natural things are used in 'the service of'
> *personalities* in
> > Scripture. This does not mean to ‘depreciate’
> nature in the eyes/ears of
> > humanity. Rather, it means to raise a question of the
> priority of
> > ‘nature’ in contrast with ‘human nature’ (that
> rather problematic
> > duo), the latter which seems to be something unique as
> a result of being
> > *ensouled, e.g. given character (psyche)*.
> >
> > Surely there can be a 'science of nature.' But
> is there a distinct
> > ‘theology of nature’ and what does it (or might
> it) mean in today’s
> > academy?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Gregory
> >
> > p.s. I write this having recently attended the
> International
> > Sociological Forum wherein ‘sociology of
> environment’ and ‘sociology of
> > the body’ were among the most popular sessions.
> >
> >
> >
> > John Cobb, Jr. (process theologian) says:
> >
> >
> http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2316
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at
> giving junk email
> > the boot with the *All-new Yahoo! Mail *
> > <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 24 10:29:27 2008