HomeAviationTravelPhotosMinistryResourcesBlogFunFilesXtraFilesResumeEmailTemp

Church & Society
Azusa Pacific University
Church & Society
January 28, 2002
"Ian Barbour's Relationships Between Religion & Science"

I.   Conflict (We don't get along)
A.   Media perpetuates the conflict inaccurately
B.   Two [extreme] examples
1.   Scientific materialism
a.   All that exists is what is here
b.   Science is the only way we can understand that
c.   The problem: Christianity deals with only those things that you cannot see
d.   Religion is irrational and science is rational
e.   We can explain all things through science
2.   Biblical fundamentalism
a.   Genesis is a literal account with no possibility of metaphoricalism
C.   According to Barbour conflict is always a negative thing
D.   Shrier thinks that having some conflict is healthy
1.   Macroevolution vs. microevolution
2.   Embryonic stem cell research vs. adult stem cell research
E.   Conflict exists when science and religion differ in values
II.   Independence (The two are different things and don't relate to each other)
A.   Science and religion are completely separate fields
B.   They have separate domains
1.   Science
a.   Interested in the how
b.   Science is trying to pursue the truth of the natural world
c.   Science studies nature
2.   Theology
a.   Interested in the why
b.   Christianity is trying to persuade people in belief in Christ
c.   The Bible studies history through a certain perspective
3.   If these two things are the case they may be able to compliment
C.   They have different questions that they are asking
1.   Science asks how things work
2.   Theology asks now how should we live
D.   They have different methods
1.   Science observes repeated occurrences
2.   Religion interprets divine revelation
III.   Dialogue (Two different things but do relate to each other)
A.   Dualism is not the best way to understand things
B.   Separating the spirit and body does not help the situation
C.   Overlap in science of religion
1.   Both are subjective to an extent (science is less subjective than religion)
2.   Both use metaphors & models to describe
3.   Both raise limit questions - they raise questions beyond our understanding but that doesn't mean things do not go further
IV.   Integration (Science and religion are the same thing) - Three Options
A.   Natural theology
1.   General revelation
2.   We can understand God by understanding nature
3.   Nature is observed as cause and effect which basically takes you back to the "uncaused-cause" -Thomas Aquinas
4.   Antrhropic Principles - If anything were different about the world we could not have human existence
5.   Precedence: theology (they are using science to prove the existence of God - they assume God)
B.   Theology of Nature
1.   We ought to reformulate Christian doctrine when science shows us new things
2.   Blank slate theology (as opposed to Original Sin theology)
C.   Systematic Synthesis
1.   Integrate science and theology into one consistent world view
2.   Best way of doing that is through process philosophy (and some aspects of process theology)
3.   Example: physics tells us there is a place of order and there is a place of chaos (all in the same body)
Temp_SideAd3