I wrote a series of posts on this article on exChristian. I will copy them here. For a fuller discussion of this article, see Discussion on the Ted Peters Article. Other people are posting their thoughts, too.

TITLE: Theology and Science: Where Are We?
AUTHOR: Ted Peters
PUBLISHING INFORMATION: Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science. Vol. 31, No. 2 (June 1996), pp. 323-343.

The article can be found online here.


First I would like to note that the article was written at least 12 years ago; it was published in 1996 and normally articles are written quite some time--perhaps a year or two--before they are published. Major changes have occurred since then, given the major advances in computer technology on one hand and world politics leading up to and following 9/11. I don't know the stats but I think there has been a significant increase in fundamentalist religion since that article was written, and there seems to be a direct link between fundamentalist religion and the terrorist attack on the United States and ensuing war. Other items also play into the situation leading up to, and following, the attack. However, for the purposes of this...I was going to say paper but I guess this is a post--the focus will be on the role of fundamentalist religion, Christian and otherwise, though I know very little about other religions.

Given that the article was written so long ago, I assume anything it says is only compounded many times over. The reason for this is as stated: 1. major advancements in technology, which have majorly added to scientific discovery (especially in astrophysics) since the article's publication, and 2. the increase in both international hostilities and fundamentalist religion, also since the article's publication.

Now let's look at the article. First of all I like to know the author's position. He states it in the second paragraph of 7. Ethical Overlap:




In the first paragraph of this section he provides a global overview of the Ethical Overlap. In the second and third paragraphs (in addition to stating his own position) he describes in more detail what he means by the Ethical Overlap. In the fourth paragraph he outlines his own position in greater detail. It is a summary of something he published earlier.

Having studied some theology myself, I get the idea that he is not a fundamentalist but he does believe in God and tries to find a way to reconcile science and theology. 1. Fundamentalists seem dead set against a one world government. Peters talks about "a single, worldwide planetary society." He does not mention a "one world government," but surely fundamentalists would immediately read such into it. 2. So far as I know, fundamentalists are not into environmentalism; what's the point in "saving a planet" that is going to be destroyed anyway right about next year in the Apocalypse?

Maybe this is enough for the OP. There is much more to the article. I haven't read all of it yet but I will.

A weakness I feel strongly in conversations like this is my very weak comprehension of philosophy. However, here is a set of questions I would like to address.



The only reality beyond the religious community that I can find is the universe. I don't consider the universe to be god, but some people do. This, however, is not the orthodox Christian position. Some progressive Christians do incorporate that idea. Peters is not a progressive Christian. Come to think of it, progressive Christian thought may not have existed in any sense worth mentioning at the time this article was written. I get the sense it is only now getting onto its feet as we are speaking.

I see theology as nothing more and nothing less than the expression of beliefs (not necessarily faith) of a religious community. I think many people mix up the terms "faith" and "beliefs." I think faith is the dynamics of believing or trusting and it does not have to be religious; it can be faith in one's friend or spouse to be as good as their word. I think beliefs is the contents of what we tell ourselves about reality and not all of it is religious; some of it regards what we think happens when we go to sleep at night or lock the door when we go away or log onto the computer.



How the world can be rational forever eludes my comprehension. In my mind, in order for something to be rational, it must have consciousness. I cannot be a rational person if I don't have a functioning brain. Perhaps the universe can be seen as an orderly place, and perhaps the laws of nature can make sense, if that is what they mean. But I don't understand that to be the same as "being rational." Anyone know what they mean by that?

I'm going to post this bit, then continue in a new post. Having problems with my reading program and must restart computer. Don't want to lose this post in the process.

I have now read the entire article. Here is the last installment of my preliminary thoughts and questions before I read what others posted:



As a deconverted half-educated theologian, and also something of a specialist in religious studies, I cannot help but disagree with this definition. I think theology is part and parcel of religion. All of it has to do with human consciousness and in many religions (but by no means all) it has to do with deity or deities. And these deities are also part of religion. You can't just put religion in place of god because god is part of it.



I don't understand this. Earlier, there is reference to Barth, a 20th century theologian. Torrence is apparently post-Barth, meaning he comes after Barth. I get the impression that Peters thinks Torrence has come up with a new idea in calling theology a science. Back in 1870 Charles Hodge made his famous statement in Systematic Theology about the facts of theology being to the theologian what the facts of nature are to the scientist. For him and his colleagues, theology was a science. See Ernest R. Sandeen (Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American
Millenarianism 1800-1930, University of Chicago Press, 1970, pp 117-118).

I will quote a few passages to prove that no twentieth century theologian was the first to talk about the science of theology. Maybe I'm missing something. That's my question here to folks more philosophically minded than myself.

Sandeen quotes Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, New York, 1960), p. 56. Whitehead refers to "two varieties of monists, those who put mind inside matter, and those who put matter inside mind. But this juggling with abstractions can never overcome the inherent confusion introduced by the ascription of misplaced concreteness to the scientific scheme of the seventeenth century" (italics original; bold-face and underline added).

Sandeen says of Charles Hodge and the Princeton Theology that it "certainly fit within this categorization as monists--continually insisting that the experiential element, the witness of the Spirit, the mystical strain, be subordinated to the matter of theological science, the Scriptures. This attempt to adapt theology to the methodology of Newtonian science produced a wooden, mechanical discipline as well as a rigorously logical one."

Let me note that Hodge DIED in 1878. It is not possible that he talked with Karl Barth or any other 20th century theologian.

Back to science and theology. According to Peters, Torrence argues that the world was created out of nothing; therefore there has to be a creator. I say, if you decide your answer before you know the argument, you can always build the argument to fit the answer.

My Conclusion

I've finally come to the end of the article. He touches on some key issues and interests of mine when he asks about seeing God in the natural world, and when he uses the death and resurrection of Jesus as the central themes by which to understand all that is. He does not answer any questions for me; rather quite the opposite. He mixes up the whole mess. He says to keep looking at things from both these perspectives. I guess some people can live with not ever arriving at conclusions. I can't.

If I am expected to give my life to a cause or belief, at the very least I should be allowed to understand what that cause or belief is. At the very most I should not be expected to lie about sacred matters. Christians expect me to over-ride both these convictions--to lie about sacred matters and say I believe something I don't, and to commit my life to something I don't understand.

There's another thing that "gets me under the skin." If memory serves, Peacock is a late member of some Christian organization in the UK dedicated to the dissemination of knowledge to laypeople so they can better answer atheists.

LATER: Did a bit of internet research. Couldn't find exactly what I was looking for but I did find some interesting stuff on Peacocke. Here is a brief biography; at the bottom is a link to his works "Search Arthur Peacocke." That link leads to a long list of links, at the top of which is a link to an article on Chance and Law in Irreversible Thermodynamics, Theoretical Biology, and Theology. That article helps me better understand some evolution theories. He's got God worked in there quite solidly, but he also explains a few other concepts that I personally find helpful. I think most people here probably understand the concepts but I don't and I didn't think anybody could explain it so I could. He comes at it from a theological perspective that somehow finds its way to my brain.