Alex |
Loading... |
Reply to author |
Edit post |
Move post |
Delete this post |
Delete this post and replies |
Change post date |
Print post |
Permalink |
Raw mail |
...From a theological perspective, I like what Wim Drees does in his book Science and Religion in Context. This is one of a handful of best books that I have read—since 1966—in science and religion. (I thought I saw a post from Wim in the last couple of days, but can’t find it.)
In his book Wim talks about two kinds of naturalism that are germane to our discussion. Both fully accept science as able to give, in principle, a complete explanation of all that happens in space and time in terms of natural laws. One view "naturalistic theism," accepts science entirely but points to the limits of scientific explanation and raises questions about the origin of space and time, and the laws of nature. Tillich and Peacocke are representatives of this view. Such a view may talk about the ground of being (not temporally but logically) or the first cause of all the secondary causes uncovered by science. The ground is more than the natural world, the source of all that science explores. But Drees does not say it is supernatural. One could, I suppose, but the point is to not use labels but to talk about what is being thought about. The second view Drees develops is "religious naturalism." In this he includes many of us as representing the varieties of religious naturalism, taking his lead from Charley Hardwick and Jerry Stone. The primary task of religious naturalism is to talk about why naturalism can be religious. In its own way, it moves beyond what science describes to point to what is of significance and value. From an epistemological point of view, it is an interesting question how we (and I include myself) do this. Finally, Drees develops what he calls the "serious agnostic" view—a position that recognizes the limits of all views, especially the two just discussed, while at the same time appreciating what each view does. As I read Drees, I can see myself in all three positions he discusses. What I've all too briefly summarized is about one-half of a chapter. Each chapter in this book brought me more insight into what we are doing in science and religion that any other book I have read. If we all read it, our discussions would move to a much higher level. I have a brief review of Wim’s book coming out in the September issue of Zygon. But it is no substitute for the book itself. Best wishes to all. Karl E Peters <kpetersirasnet@cox.net> IRASNET <irasnet@biology.wustl.edu> Jun 15, 2010 Willem B. Drees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_B._Drees |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |