Sunday, March 30, 2003
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
review of Protestants in an age of science. by T.D. Bozeman. review on amazon. book is outofprint and i had to borrow it from the UofA library.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 out of 5 stars = Old Princeton's doxology for 19thC science, built by Bacon
Reviewer: rmwilliamsjr from tucson, arizona USA
This is a scholarly work, by a competent historian and excellent writer, the book will get nowhere near the attention and reading it deserves, perhaps explaining why it is out-of-print.
The people who need to read it the most, are perhaps the least likely to read it, the young earth creationists. The author has at least two high level motivations to write this book. The first is to demonstrate specifically how in a particular time and place, early 19thC America, a particular religious group, Old Princeton as heir of Reformation Calvinism, works to tie religion and culture together to solve societal intellectual problems. pg 174 "It may be questioned whether religious leaders at any previous point in the nation's past ahd achievd a more unabashed union of gospel and culture than this."(this referring to the Presbyterian Old School baconist interpretation of both science and religion) Secondly, he desires as a historian to cast light on the thoughts of today by tracing their roots historically and philosophically. "It is therefore feasible to suggest that the most important contemporary echo of Baconian biblicism in not to be heard within Presbyterianism as such, but within the huge party of conservative evangelicalism which has adherents within every denomination and which today perpetuates in varying degrees the essential theological tents of Fundamentalism, including biblical inerrancy." pg 173
We are used to the analogy of religion and science at war, we are less accustomed to the 19thC thinking of the two books of God; special revelation in the words of the Bible, and general revelation in the book of nature, as read by science. The two books, not warfare is the analogy that dominated American religious thought, especially the particular school represented by Princeton, until the rise of Darwinianism in 1870's. The contention that the two books, as written by the same reasonable God could not contradict each other is crucial to the theology as explained in the book. The book develops the theme that a particular way of reading both books, Baconism developed as a reaction to the French Enlightment with its accent on the unfettered by religion rise of man's Reason to explain the world.
The best part of the book is what he calls the doxological relationship of theology to science. pg 78 "More often, religious values were stated explicitly. Edward Everett, as usual, captured the full essence of current conceptions: 'the great end of all knowledge is to enlarge and purify the soul, to fill the mind with noble contemplations, to furnish a refined pleasure, and to lead our feeble reason from the works of nature up to its great Author,' Everett considered this 'as the ultimate aim of science.'" Having grown up in a world dominated by materialist science the chapter on doxological science was reason enough to have spent the time reading this book. That our forefather's in the faith, at a crucial time in the development of the relationship of modern science and theology; saw science as anawe-inspiring, devotional subject is a breath of fresh cool air on a world presently seen by science as aloof, uninterested in humankind, random, and downright unfriendly, dominated by forces of impersonality certainly not a loving God.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 out of 5 stars = Old Princeton's doxology for 19thC science, built by Bacon
Reviewer: rmwilliamsjr from tucson, arizona USA
This is a scholarly work, by a competent historian and excellent writer, the book will get nowhere near the attention and reading it deserves, perhaps explaining why it is out-of-print.
The people who need to read it the most, are perhaps the least likely to read it, the young earth creationists. The author has at least two high level motivations to write this book. The first is to demonstrate specifically how in a particular time and place, early 19thC America, a particular religious group, Old Princeton as heir of Reformation Calvinism, works to tie religion and culture together to solve societal intellectual problems. pg 174 "It may be questioned whether religious leaders at any previous point in the nation's past ahd achievd a more unabashed union of gospel and culture than this."(this referring to the Presbyterian Old School baconist interpretation of both science and religion) Secondly, he desires as a historian to cast light on the thoughts of today by tracing their roots historically and philosophically. "It is therefore feasible to suggest that the most important contemporary echo of Baconian biblicism in not to be heard within Presbyterianism as such, but within the huge party of conservative evangelicalism which has adherents within every denomination and which today perpetuates in varying degrees the essential theological tents of Fundamentalism, including biblical inerrancy." pg 173
We are used to the analogy of religion and science at war, we are less accustomed to the 19thC thinking of the two books of God; special revelation in the words of the Bible, and general revelation in the book of nature, as read by science. The two books, not warfare is the analogy that dominated American religious thought, especially the particular school represented by Princeton, until the rise of Darwinianism in 1870's. The contention that the two books, as written by the same reasonable God could not contradict each other is crucial to the theology as explained in the book. The book develops the theme that a particular way of reading both books, Baconism developed as a reaction to the French Enlightment with its accent on the unfettered by religion rise of man's Reason to explain the world.
The best part of the book is what he calls the doxological relationship of theology to science. pg 78 "More often, religious values were stated explicitly. Edward Everett, as usual, captured the full essence of current conceptions: 'the great end of all knowledge is to enlarge and purify the soul, to fill the mind with noble contemplations, to furnish a refined pleasure, and to lead our feeble reason from the works of nature up to its great Author,' Everett considered this 'as the ultimate aim of science.'" Having grown up in a world dominated by materialist science the chapter on doxological science was reason enough to have spent the time reading this book. That our forefather's in the faith, at a crucial time in the development of the relationship of modern science and theology; saw science as anawe-inspiring, devotional subject is a breath of fresh cool air on a world presently seen by science as aloof, uninterested in humankind, random, and downright unfriendly, dominated by forces of impersonality certainly not a loving God.
book recomendation
i believe it was on this forum that i found reference to _where do we come from?_ by kein and takahata. i owe that person a big thank you for pointing out simply the best book i have seen yet on human evolution. surprisingly he will and does take the time to introduce ideas in such a way that an educated intelligent layman will get the tools to understand the discussions. this is very unusual and very well done.
it is good enough, and complete enough to recommend it as the basis for any real discussion of the issues. for it brings everyone who reads it uptodate with the crucial points of evolution. that is really the reason so much of the creation evolution debate is a question of "he said, she said" because the common base of knowledge on the subject is often shallow. people seem to prefer not to do their homework and talk without trying to grasp the facts of the discussion via intensive study of the fields involved.
if anyone has similiar recommendations please share them with me.
i believe it was on this forum that i found reference to _where do we come from?_ by kein and takahata. i owe that person a big thank you for pointing out simply the best book i have seen yet on human evolution. surprisingly he will and does take the time to introduce ideas in such a way that an educated intelligent layman will get the tools to understand the discussions. this is very unusual and very well done.
it is good enough, and complete enough to recommend it as the basis for any real discussion of the issues. for it brings everyone who reads it uptodate with the crucial points of evolution. that is really the reason so much of the creation evolution debate is a question of "he said, she said" because the common base of knowledge on the subject is often shallow. people seem to prefer not to do their homework and talk without trying to grasp the facts of the discussion via intensive study of the fields involved.
if anyone has similiar recommendations please share them with me.
from _protestants in an age of science_ chapter 4 "doxological science and its enemies" pg 87.
quote:
But it was not enough merely to affirm science as a handmaiden of devotion. If science had a sublime potential as an ally of belief, it also possessed possibilities of a more menacing sort. Improperly guided, it could spring out of its doxological traces, trample faith, and demoralize the inquiring spirit of man with a vision of an amoral, aimless cosmos. Presbyterians were keenly aware of the prospect that science, falsely conceived, could become a snaring noose of unbelief. To begin with, bloated with a growing sense of its own procedural and institutional autonomy, science easily could be transformed into a merely secular enterprise. Further, the Newtonian view of nature rested upon a frankly materialistic atomism which seemed ever capable of dissolving the teleological and therefore meaningful perspectives proffered by religion. And these pressures, secularism and materialism, when not governed by a taut framework of religious perception, were constantly finding release in "heretical" formulations manifestly incompatible with important biblical principles. At no time did orthodoxy manage to expunge the fear that science was tensely ready to break clear of the snug alliance with religion cherished by defenders of a theological world-view.
end of quote
-----
quote:
But it was not enough merely to affirm science as a handmaiden of devotion. If science had a sublime potential as an ally of belief, it also possessed possibilities of a more menacing sort. Improperly guided, it could spring out of its doxological traces, trample faith, and demoralize the inquiring spirit of man with a vision of an amoral, aimless cosmos. Presbyterians were keenly aware of the prospect that science, falsely conceived, could become a snaring noose of unbelief. To begin with, bloated with a growing sense of its own procedural and institutional autonomy, science easily could be transformed into a merely secular enterprise. Further, the Newtonian view of nature rested upon a frankly materialistic atomism which seemed ever capable of dissolving the teleological and therefore meaningful perspectives proffered by religion. And these pressures, secularism and materialism, when not governed by a taut framework of religious perception, were constantly finding release in "heretical" formulations manifestly incompatible with important biblical principles. At no time did orthodoxy manage to expunge the fear that science was tensely ready to break clear of the snug alliance with religion cherished by defenders of a theological world-view.
end of quote
-----
Thursday, February 20, 2003
library books to be read
---------
post darwininan controversies moore bt 712 m66
design of evolution erich jantsch b 818 j33
evangelicalism mark noll ed br 1642 n7 e83 1994
tragedy and hope a history of the world in our time quigley d 421 q5
pile of xeroxed books
---------
protestants in an age of science bozeman bl 245 b7
creator and creation
presbyterian controversy longfield bx8937 l65 1991
pca creation study committee report
easy essay peter maurin hn37 c3 m53 1977
decline of eastern christianity under the dhimmitude
putting it all together, 7 patterns in the relationship of science and theology. richard bube
---------
post darwininan controversies moore bt 712 m66
design of evolution erich jantsch b 818 j33
evangelicalism mark noll ed br 1642 n7 e83 1994
tragedy and hope a history of the world in our time quigley d 421 q5
pile of xeroxed books
---------
protestants in an age of science bozeman bl 245 b7
creator and creation
presbyterian controversy longfield bx8937 l65 1991
pca creation study committee report
easy essay peter maurin hn37 c3 m53 1977
decline of eastern christianity under the dhimmitude
putting it all together, 7 patterns in the relationship of science and theology. richard bube
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
review for _science and its limits_ del ratzsch
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I came across the book as a deliberate study of the problems involved in the debate over creation evolution in the conservative christian community. It lived up to its expectations as an introductory study of the philosophy of science from a christian prespective. Del Ratzsch is a very competent philosopher, book is well written and strives for a balance not often seen it this field, i am sad to discover. He ends the books with the idea of "speak the truth in love", remarkably there are several reviews here on amazon concerning this book that apparently don't think this a principle to follow. again sadly.
as an example of a balanced passage: page 124
"the second reservation is that different parts of science operate in different ways, on different levels and must answer to different demands. consider the principle of the uniformity of nature. historically the underpinning of that principle is philosophical. it is not empirically testable-indeed, what test results might mean it itself determined in part in a context already defined by that very principle"
it certainly deserves a place in any thinking christian's bookshelf. it is not very doctrinaire and would be an asset to anyone interested in the topic of the philo of science, especially anyone who wants view conditioned by a particular perspective deeply involved in western culture.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I came across the book as a deliberate study of the problems involved in the debate over creation evolution in the conservative christian community. It lived up to its expectations as an introductory study of the philosophy of science from a christian prespective. Del Ratzsch is a very competent philosopher, book is well written and strives for a balance not often seen it this field, i am sad to discover. He ends the books with the idea of "speak the truth in love", remarkably there are several reviews here on amazon concerning this book that apparently don't think this a principle to follow. again sadly.
as an example of a balanced passage: page 124
"the second reservation is that different parts of science operate in different ways, on different levels and must answer to different demands. consider the principle of the uniformity of nature. historically the underpinning of that principle is philosophical. it is not empirically testable-indeed, what test results might mean it itself determined in part in a context already defined by that very principle"
it certainly deserves a place in any thinking christian's bookshelf. it is not very doctrinaire and would be an asset to anyone interested in the topic of the philo of science, especially anyone who wants view conditioned by a particular perspective deeply involved in western culture.
review of _battle for god_ by karen armstrong
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This book literally pushed its way from the bottom of my to-be-read list, and forced me to regret every minute i didn't read it. From the tone of concern, through the extraordinary well researched data, to the high level threads it is a must read book.
Two interrelated but distinct pairs of complementary ideas are at the center of the book. Everything else revolves around these most interesting ideas. First is the pair: conservative and liberal. She gives conservative the meaning of a person, rooted in the past when religion was part of an agrarian culture. The key element is the binding of people's consciousness to a traditional way that would not out run the resources available to an agriculturally based pre industrial society. The thesis looks mildly Marxist with its superstructure of intellectual things build on the means of production. But i think it is just a recognization that how we make a living will greatly effect how we think. The liberal is defined as modern, future orientated, post industrial, built on the limitless abundancy of modern industrial-scientific materialist output.
The second pair is: logos and mythos. This is where her organization really shines. I dont think a page goes by where you are not aware of how she is intertwining and relating the story back to these ideas. Logos is reason, personified in science, mythos is the pre rational, deeply felt side of humanbeings that gives rise to stories, myths, scriptures which try to capture in words the passage of people into this supernatural world.
The organization is chronological, where the 3 monothesistic Abrahamic faiths are posed side by side in time, to show how their respective fundamentalist movements orginated and grew.
The insights are important, apropos to a world where polarization and the failure to communicate is a problem increasing almost daily. One particularly appropriate idea is that mythos translated into logos is a disaster, it yields bad religion and even worse science......
So. drop whatever you're reading and get ahold of this 5 star book and have at it. I used up an entire yellowing pen on it...*grin*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This book literally pushed its way from the bottom of my to-be-read list, and forced me to regret every minute i didn't read it. From the tone of concern, through the extraordinary well researched data, to the high level threads it is a must read book.
Two interrelated but distinct pairs of complementary ideas are at the center of the book. Everything else revolves around these most interesting ideas. First is the pair: conservative and liberal. She gives conservative the meaning of a person, rooted in the past when religion was part of an agrarian culture. The key element is the binding of people's consciousness to a traditional way that would not out run the resources available to an agriculturally based pre industrial society. The thesis looks mildly Marxist with its superstructure of intellectual things build on the means of production. But i think it is just a recognization that how we make a living will greatly effect how we think. The liberal is defined as modern, future orientated, post industrial, built on the limitless abundancy of modern industrial-scientific materialist output.
The second pair is: logos and mythos. This is where her organization really shines. I dont think a page goes by where you are not aware of how she is intertwining and relating the story back to these ideas. Logos is reason, personified in science, mythos is the pre rational, deeply felt side of humanbeings that gives rise to stories, myths, scriptures which try to capture in words the passage of people into this supernatural world.
The organization is chronological, where the 3 monothesistic Abrahamic faiths are posed side by side in time, to show how their respective fundamentalist movements orginated and grew.
The insights are important, apropos to a world where polarization and the failure to communicate is a problem increasing almost daily. One particularly appropriate idea is that mythos translated into logos is a disaster, it yields bad religion and even worse science......
So. drop whatever you're reading and get ahold of this 5 star book and have at it. I used up an entire yellowing pen on it...*grin*
at amazon.com, review of _meaning of creation_ by Conrad Hyers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is one of those drop everything and read now type of books. very much appropriate to a discussion of gen 1 and 2, and the extended discussion of creation evolution, with attention to the relationship of religion and science.
his thesis is that the first two chapters of genesis are polemic against the neighboring cultures of the hebrews. simply put genesis has nothing to do with modern science at all. we impose our catagories of thought, but more importantly we impose what we want to hear onto these chapters.
just a few quotes will help:
it is quite doubtful that these texts have waited in obscurity through the millennia for their hidden meanings to be revealed by modern science. it is at least a good possibility that the "real meaning" was understood by the authors themselves. pg 3
and in response to henry morris who wrote "the creation account is clear, definite, sequential and matter-of-fact, giving evey appearance of straightforward historical narrative"
---hyers writes on pg 23 "this may indeed be the way things appear to certain modern interpreters at considerable remove from the context in which the texts were written, living in an age so dominated by scientific and historical modes of thought. It may also be the way things appear to those for whom modern science and historiography offer the criteria by which religious statements are to be understood and judged to be true or false. Yet it is by no means obvious that this represents the literary form or religious concern of the Genesis writers"
the problem of the debate over origins from genesis is like pogo said in the widely quoted cartoon "we have met the enemy and he is US".
the reason we have so much smoke over genesis is that we forgot the first rule of hermenutics. approach the text as the first readers did, with their assumptions, their world and life view. with the issues they were interested in understanding in the forefront. NOT OURS. the extension of scripture to all times and ages is done after this culture and historic criticism. not before.
therefore genesis is a religious not a scientific document addressed to the questions of that time. polytheism, and sacralization of the physical world. this is in alignment with _battle for god_ by karen armstrong and her analysis of logos and mythos. our problem is that we so depreciate mythos as being NOT TRUE that we very much miss the point of the first two chapters of Genesis....
pixel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is one of those drop everything and read now type of books. very much appropriate to a discussion of gen 1 and 2, and the extended discussion of creation evolution, with attention to the relationship of religion and science.
his thesis is that the first two chapters of genesis are polemic against the neighboring cultures of the hebrews. simply put genesis has nothing to do with modern science at all. we impose our catagories of thought, but more importantly we impose what we want to hear onto these chapters.
just a few quotes will help:
it is quite doubtful that these texts have waited in obscurity through the millennia for their hidden meanings to be revealed by modern science. it is at least a good possibility that the "real meaning" was understood by the authors themselves. pg 3
and in response to henry morris who wrote "the creation account is clear, definite, sequential and matter-of-fact, giving evey appearance of straightforward historical narrative"
---hyers writes on pg 23 "this may indeed be the way things appear to certain modern interpreters at considerable remove from the context in which the texts were written, living in an age so dominated by scientific and historical modes of thought. It may also be the way things appear to those for whom modern science and historiography offer the criteria by which religious statements are to be understood and judged to be true or false. Yet it is by no means obvious that this represents the literary form or religious concern of the Genesis writers"
the problem of the debate over origins from genesis is like pogo said in the widely quoted cartoon "we have met the enemy and he is US".
the reason we have so much smoke over genesis is that we forgot the first rule of hermenutics. approach the text as the first readers did, with their assumptions, their world and life view. with the issues they were interested in understanding in the forefront. NOT OURS. the extension of scripture to all times and ages is done after this culture and historic criticism. not before.
therefore genesis is a religious not a scientific document addressed to the questions of that time. polytheism, and sacralization of the physical world. this is in alignment with _battle for god_ by karen armstrong and her analysis of logos and mythos. our problem is that we so depreciate mythos as being NOT TRUE that we very much miss the point of the first two chapters of Genesis....
pixel
review at amazon.com _understanding fundamentalism and evangelicalism- by george marsden
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How i got to this book is important about how i read it.
Started with a directed study of creation and evolution from a Christian viewpoint, see my webpage at fastucson.net/~rmwillia for more detail. After a few months of watching and participating in online debates i became interesting in what i saw to be a common element in the young earth creationist people. That was an elevation of the CED issue to one of a salvation issue. Frankly i was surprised and a little dismayed at this theological development. So i asked for help on trying to get a handle on fundamentalist theology. This was one of perhaps 5 books recommended by lots of people.
The book is unusual in the mix of tone and levels of sophistication between the chapters. It stems from the fact that this small volume is primarily a collection of essays from the author's much larger multiple volume work on the same topic. As a collection of essays, not particularly held together by design they are certainly representative of his thought, and probably the best of his work on the topic. But the chapters are not sequential or connected in a discernible way. In this case however this is not a criticism, the book flows ok anyhow.
What is the history of fundamentalism in america and why should i care? It's a big movement 25-45% of the population by most measurements. But more importantly it represents a criticism of modernism that is hard to miss. With abortion, evolution in the public schools, gay rights etc being just tip of a huge iceberg where the movement hits the political sphere, inescapable for any one with current issues interest.
The book is well written, the chapters are concise and gently lead you to see what the author sees in the movement. You know from the beginning that the author is sympathetic with the fundamentalist's but at the same time you don't feel that his religion is interfering with his studies. You can see places he is saddened by events, disappointed at roads not taken but at the same time he comes across as a feeling competent historian.
The real strength to me is the 5th chapter on the "evangelical love affair with enlightment science". He presents two men, bb. warfield and abraham kuyer as evangelicals with very different ideas of the relationship of science to religion. Warfield is classic science yields truth in its studies and ought to be seen as the study of the general revelation in nature. Kuyer is far more sophisticated and sees Kuhian themes 75 years before, in his analysis that different types of people have very different presuppositions and these necessarily led to a different science.
This insight as well as an extended discussion about the origin of the science and religion at war metaphor is worth the time to read this book. If you have any interest in the field this is a good introduction plus a reference to point further down the road of study.
Like a lot of well written history it can be judged by the standard of if he interests you enough in the material that you look up the references in the footnotes and even order more books in the field. This was the case with me, i will continue to follow up on a few of his big ideas, but i am not going to tackle his multiple volume work *grin*.
thanks for listening.
richard williams
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How i got to this book is important about how i read it.
Started with a directed study of creation and evolution from a Christian viewpoint, see my webpage at fastucson.net/~rmwillia for more detail. After a few months of watching and participating in online debates i became interesting in what i saw to be a common element in the young earth creationist people. That was an elevation of the CED issue to one of a salvation issue. Frankly i was surprised and a little dismayed at this theological development. So i asked for help on trying to get a handle on fundamentalist theology. This was one of perhaps 5 books recommended by lots of people.
The book is unusual in the mix of tone and levels of sophistication between the chapters. It stems from the fact that this small volume is primarily a collection of essays from the author's much larger multiple volume work on the same topic. As a collection of essays, not particularly held together by design they are certainly representative of his thought, and probably the best of his work on the topic. But the chapters are not sequential or connected in a discernible way. In this case however this is not a criticism, the book flows ok anyhow.
What is the history of fundamentalism in america and why should i care? It's a big movement 25-45% of the population by most measurements. But more importantly it represents a criticism of modernism that is hard to miss. With abortion, evolution in the public schools, gay rights etc being just tip of a huge iceberg where the movement hits the political sphere, inescapable for any one with current issues interest.
The book is well written, the chapters are concise and gently lead you to see what the author sees in the movement. You know from the beginning that the author is sympathetic with the fundamentalist's but at the same time you don't feel that his religion is interfering with his studies. You can see places he is saddened by events, disappointed at roads not taken but at the same time he comes across as a feeling competent historian.
The real strength to me is the 5th chapter on the "evangelical love affair with enlightment science". He presents two men, bb. warfield and abraham kuyer as evangelicals with very different ideas of the relationship of science to religion. Warfield is classic science yields truth in its studies and ought to be seen as the study of the general revelation in nature. Kuyer is far more sophisticated and sees Kuhian themes 75 years before, in his analysis that different types of people have very different presuppositions and these necessarily led to a different science.
This insight as well as an extended discussion about the origin of the science and religion at war metaphor is worth the time to read this book. If you have any interest in the field this is a good introduction plus a reference to point further down the road of study.
Like a lot of well written history it can be judged by the standard of if he interests you enough in the material that you look up the references in the footnotes and even order more books in the field. This was the case with me, i will continue to follow up on a few of his big ideas, but i am not going to tackle his multiple volume work *grin*.
thanks for listening.
richard williams
review for amazon.com on _scandal of the evangelical mind_ by mark noll
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The author is a good historian, the book reflects not only talent in research and comprehension of the big picture of historical theology, but a heart felt grasp of evangelicalism since 1800.
Two quotes must rise to the surface of any readers mind:
The first line of the preface "this book is an epistle from a wounded lover." and the first line of chapter one "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind". The first reflects an attitude evident throughout the book, he is himself evangelical, furthermore he is sympathetic with the goals and aspirations of the movement. The second quote is his reason for the book, to try to heighten the awareness of this community to its fundamental themes which mitigate against the scholarly world of the mind.
The book takes on the sacred cow of the young earth creationist in chapter 7 "thinking about science". He doesnt spare anyone's feelings in the process of analyzing the movement. from pg 196 "creation science has damaged evangelicalism by making it much more difficult to think clearly about human origins, the age of the earth, and mechanisms of geological or biological change. But it has done more profound damage by undermining the ability to look at the world God has made and to understand what we see when we do look."
This argument alone will continue to polarize the evangelical community into YEC and non-YEC, a position to which organizations like CRI, AiG, etc would gladly push the church into a false dichomotomy where to be with their particularist interpretations is the only way to stand with God. It is certainly a chapter that the author thought long and hard over before committing himself to print. It is also a position that anyone with the understanding gained from reading this book will agree with. The book is not primarily a polemic against a particular way of treating science, it is a far wider and broader criticism than that. But under the current social and political pressure from these interest groups, this is what the book will be to many people. Sadly so, for the reaction of people demonstrates the strength of his arguments for following the quote above he labels the mindset as Manichaeanism. Those who see the whole world as a fight to the death between good and evil, no grays, no mixtures. Just God and the Devil.
The book is excellent, the topic timely and of crucial importance to anyone who would describe themselves as evangelical or conservative. but you only need to read the handful of reviews here on amazon, or search for book reviews on the net to realize that lots of people are reading this book with their minds completely madeup on the issue. True learning requires a "suspension of disbelief", a mallability towards new thoughts, sadly the very people the book is addressed to are the very same ones who will not read it in the spirit it was written.
Additional, if you are thinking of a book for a college aged sunday school class, or a discussion group at a college where they are looking at these issues, this would rate my highest recommendation for a book to use. It is well organized and will guide thinking while exposing you to a variety of alternative paths if you dont like the one the author describes.
thanks for listening
richard williams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The author is a good historian, the book reflects not only talent in research and comprehension of the big picture of historical theology, but a heart felt grasp of evangelicalism since 1800.
Two quotes must rise to the surface of any readers mind:
The first line of the preface "this book is an epistle from a wounded lover." and the first line of chapter one "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind". The first reflects an attitude evident throughout the book, he is himself evangelical, furthermore he is sympathetic with the goals and aspirations of the movement. The second quote is his reason for the book, to try to heighten the awareness of this community to its fundamental themes which mitigate against the scholarly world of the mind.
The book takes on the sacred cow of the young earth creationist in chapter 7 "thinking about science". He doesnt spare anyone's feelings in the process of analyzing the movement. from pg 196 "creation science has damaged evangelicalism by making it much more difficult to think clearly about human origins, the age of the earth, and mechanisms of geological or biological change. But it has done more profound damage by undermining the ability to look at the world God has made and to understand what we see when we do look."
This argument alone will continue to polarize the evangelical community into YEC and non-YEC, a position to which organizations like CRI, AiG, etc would gladly push the church into a false dichomotomy where to be with their particularist interpretations is the only way to stand with God. It is certainly a chapter that the author thought long and hard over before committing himself to print. It is also a position that anyone with the understanding gained from reading this book will agree with. The book is not primarily a polemic against a particular way of treating science, it is a far wider and broader criticism than that. But under the current social and political pressure from these interest groups, this is what the book will be to many people. Sadly so, for the reaction of people demonstrates the strength of his arguments for following the quote above he labels the mindset as Manichaeanism. Those who see the whole world as a fight to the death between good and evil, no grays, no mixtures. Just God and the Devil.
The book is excellent, the topic timely and of crucial importance to anyone who would describe themselves as evangelical or conservative. but you only need to read the handful of reviews here on amazon, or search for book reviews on the net to realize that lots of people are reading this book with their minds completely madeup on the issue. True learning requires a "suspension of disbelief", a mallability towards new thoughts, sadly the very people the book is addressed to are the very same ones who will not read it in the spirit it was written.
Additional, if you are thinking of a book for a college aged sunday school class, or a discussion group at a college where they are looking at these issues, this would rate my highest recommendation for a book to use. It is well organized and will guide thinking while exposing you to a variety of alternative paths if you dont like the one the author describes.
thanks for listening
richard williams
Monday, February 17, 2003
scandal of the evangelical mind
at first things
issues from the atlantic
of course AiG's unique perspective *grin*
The Church in Crisis:
A Postmodern Reader
Saturday, February 15, 2003
NOLL _the scandal of the evangelical mind_ from uofa library: BR1642U5N651994main.
pg.35. In 1912, the Presbyterian Bible scholar J. Gresham Machen stated carefully the way that thinking affects practical life. His words are as prescient today as they were for the less complicated world that he addressed: "We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer, and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion...What is to-day a matter of academic speculation, begins to-morrow to move armies and pull down empires." J. Gresham Machen, "Christianity and Culture," Princeton Theological Review 11(1913):7;for discussion, see George Marsden, "Understanding J. Gresham Machen,"Princeton Seminary Bulletin, n.s., 11(1990):46-60
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if i don't respond to an online discussion and post my reply to the other writing blog, i intend to get a quote from my latest book and think about it outloud here. i like the way Stephen Jones has built up his library of quotable quotes and will strive to do something similar.
in my mind is a similar quote:
even the most hardboiled politican is victim of some long dead forgotten economist whose theory he has unconsciously adopted.
The quote really points to the importance of the world of the mind in human events. We depreciate intellectual activity because when we look at someone thinking he doesn't appear to be doing anything at all.
the joke about the efficency expert hired to shape up a small firm. He spends a few days talking to everyone and analyzing the flow of information and products in the organization, etc, etc. Finally he presents his report to the owners and management. Congratulations he announces, this is a well run company, i have only one problem, that is the guy in the back office who sits all day long with his feet up and the desk, doing nothing. I cant seem to figure out what he is doing there. Joe, that is exactly the same way he looked when he had the first idea that created our product line, was the reply. He's working on the next big idea now, just sitting there.
The implication being that you really can't see the mental activity by looking at the person doing it. Plus the added benefit of showing that underneath the entire operation there was a significant single idea that started it all. This is really the take home message i got from my studies of the Reagan revolution, 3 classic things go into economic enterprises: land, labour, capital. to that add creativity, human spirit, entrepenureal spirit.......
Back to Machen quote. He saw that ideas move armies, and it is the underlying collective thought that is important in a culture. We as Christians may not worship at the mall, cast our treasures before the feet of modern materialism, but we are part of the culture. If we do not consciously adopt beliefs consistent with our calling, we will act as if we believe those beliefs at the center of our society. We may deny that life is a game, where money is the way we keep score. We may assent to a life where the pursuit of holiness is primary. But we betray our true feelings with what we do with our time and our energies. If we spend our lives feeding our material body and its cravings, and neglect the greater needs of our souls, forget that we are two essences; body and soul/spirit. Just an hour or two Sunday mornings feeding our souls will not make up for 5 days pursuing wealth to feed our bodies.
I would hope that is why i have taken off these few years, consciously not involved in making money, to balance out those years where feeding the kids was primary importance.
pg.35. In 1912, the Presbyterian Bible scholar J. Gresham Machen stated carefully the way that thinking affects practical life. His words are as prescient today as they were for the less complicated world that he addressed: "We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer, and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion...What is to-day a matter of academic speculation, begins to-morrow to move armies and pull down empires." J. Gresham Machen, "Christianity and Culture," Princeton Theological Review 11(1913):7;for discussion, see George Marsden, "Understanding J. Gresham Machen,"Princeton Seminary Bulletin, n.s., 11(1990):46-60
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if i don't respond to an online discussion and post my reply to the other writing blog, i intend to get a quote from my latest book and think about it outloud here. i like the way Stephen Jones has built up his library of quotable quotes and will strive to do something similar.
in my mind is a similar quote:
even the most hardboiled politican is victim of some long dead forgotten economist whose theory he has unconsciously adopted.
The quote really points to the importance of the world of the mind in human events. We depreciate intellectual activity because when we look at someone thinking he doesn't appear to be doing anything at all.
the joke about the efficency expert hired to shape up a small firm. He spends a few days talking to everyone and analyzing the flow of information and products in the organization, etc, etc. Finally he presents his report to the owners and management. Congratulations he announces, this is a well run company, i have only one problem, that is the guy in the back office who sits all day long with his feet up and the desk, doing nothing. I cant seem to figure out what he is doing there. Joe, that is exactly the same way he looked when he had the first idea that created our product line, was the reply. He's working on the next big idea now, just sitting there.
The implication being that you really can't see the mental activity by looking at the person doing it. Plus the added benefit of showing that underneath the entire operation there was a significant single idea that started it all. This is really the take home message i got from my studies of the Reagan revolution, 3 classic things go into economic enterprises: land, labour, capital. to that add creativity, human spirit, entrepenureal spirit.......
Back to Machen quote. He saw that ideas move armies, and it is the underlying collective thought that is important in a culture. We as Christians may not worship at the mall, cast our treasures before the feet of modern materialism, but we are part of the culture. If we do not consciously adopt beliefs consistent with our calling, we will act as if we believe those beliefs at the center of our society. We may deny that life is a game, where money is the way we keep score. We may assent to a life where the pursuit of holiness is primary. But we betray our true feelings with what we do with our time and our energies. If we spend our lives feeding our material body and its cravings, and neglect the greater needs of our souls, forget that we are two essences; body and soul/spirit. Just an hour or two Sunday mornings feeding our souls will not make up for 5 days pursuing wealth to feed our bodies.
I would hope that is why i have taken off these few years, consciously not involved in making money, to balance out those years where feeding the kids was primary importance.
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
i am afraid i am neglecting this blog. it has great potential. for i see how stephen jones over at CED has done great things with his quotation data base.....
finished _meaning of creation_ put short review up at amazon.
need to create better, longer, more complete reviews and post them to my home page. maybe that will encourage people to interact with me on the level of the books i am reading.
rereading kline's kingdom prologue, and looking at plantinga in faith and rationality....continuing to buy too too many books and xerox outofprint books from the uofa library. sure wish two things. remember everything i read forever and read much faster....
finished _meaning of creation_ put short review up at amazon.
need to create better, longer, more complete reviews and post them to my home page. maybe that will encourage people to interact with me on the level of the books i am reading.
rereading kline's kingdom prologue, and looking at plantinga in faith and rationality....continuing to buy too too many books and xerox outofprint books from the uofa library. sure wish two things. remember everything i read forever and read much faster....
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
reading _battle for god_ by karen armstrong.
posted request for references at creationism-groups the results:
The Fundamentalist Phenomenon" edited by Norman J. Cohen
Campbell's "Myths to Live By"
"The Creationist Movement in Modern America"
"The Creationists: The Evolution of Creationism" by Ron Numbers
darwinism comes to america
The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (1993)
by Ronald L. Numbers
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520083938
Darwinism Comes to America (1998)
by Ronald L. Numbers
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674193121
God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between
Christianity and Science (1986)
edited by David C. Lindberg & Ronald L. Numbers
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520056922
Creationist Movement in Modern America (1990)
by Raymond A. Eve & Francis B. Harrold
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805797416
Cult Archaeology & Creationism: Understanding Pseudoscientific
Beliefs About the Past (1995)
edited by Francis B. Harrold & Raymond A. Eve
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877455139
Fundamentalism and American Culture (1982)
by George M. Marsden
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195030834
Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (1991)
by George M. Marsden
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802805396
Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in
America (2002)
by Larry A. Witham
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195150457
Though this book is focused on education politics issues, it also
deals with sociological aspects of the creationist movement:
The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in Schools (2nd Ed.,
2000)
by Dorothy Nelkin
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595001947
There's also this important, but dated, book on this general subject
that was published in the mid-1960s:
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life
by Richard Hofstadter
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0394703170
posted request for references at creationism-groups the results:
The Fundamentalist Phenomenon" edited by Norman J. Cohen
Campbell's "Myths to Live By"
"The Creationist Movement in Modern America"
"The Creationists: The Evolution of Creationism" by Ron Numbers
darwinism comes to america
The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (1993)
by Ronald L. Numbers
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520083938
Darwinism Comes to America (1998)
by Ronald L. Numbers
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674193121
God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between
Christianity and Science (1986)
edited by David C. Lindberg & Ronald L. Numbers
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520056922
Creationist Movement in Modern America (1990)
by Raymond A. Eve & Francis B. Harrold
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805797416
Cult Archaeology & Creationism: Understanding Pseudoscientific
Beliefs About the Past (1995)
edited by Francis B. Harrold & Raymond A. Eve
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877455139
Fundamentalism and American Culture (1982)
by George M. Marsden
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195030834
Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (1991)
by George M. Marsden
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802805396
Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in
America (2002)
by Larry A. Witham
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195150457
Though this book is focused on education politics issues, it also
deals with sociological aspects of the creationist movement:
The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in Schools (2nd Ed.,
2000)
by Dorothy Nelkin
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595001947
There's also this important, but dated, book on this general subject
that was published in the mid-1960s:
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life
by Richard Hofstadter
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0394703170
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
Three Views on Creation and Evolution
by James Porter Moreland (Editor), John Mark Reynolds (Editor), John J. Davis, Howard J. Van Till, Paul Nelson, Robert C. Newman
s
Customer Reviews
Avg. Customer Review: 3.2 out of 5 stars
Number of Reviews: 13
4 out of 5 stars a place to start, January 17, 2003
Reviewer: rmwilliamsjr (see more about me) from tucson, arizona USA
i've read in the field of creation-evolution for nearly 30 years now, from the _genesis flood_ to _darwin's dangerous idea_. that certainly doesn't make me an expert, only a concerned layman. this book is addressed by christian's to christian's, not that anyone outside of that community won't get a great deal out of the discussion only that the emotional desire/impetus to seek answers pushes christian's with a high view of scripture to try to reconcile the two biggies in their lives: science looking at general revelation and theology looking at scriptures. if you're not part of this community it is much easier just to ask "so what?" and not to understand why this is such a personal topic.
this is a first book, that is suitable for educated people to delve into a topic where many of the other books in this field/topic presume a background in either science or theology, or where the books are so stridently biased as to be "preaching to the choir" and put off 'newbies' with their presentation.
the issues are presented well enough that i think if someone finishes the book they will have a reasonable idea of what the problems are and where the different parts are most concerned in the discussion. it is not a scientific or theologically based book but rather philosophic. it presents concerns from each viewpoint, thus showing relative priorities in what each person discusses first and critisies as lacking emphasis in the other viewpoints. this is one value in a debate type of format, it can leave you with a prioritized idea of what people find important in the issues.
one problem however with this debate framework is that each person reading the book who already have committments to issues or positions tend to cheer for their side and boo down the opposing sides. this is evident from the reviews posted here, the young earth creation team is not the big names in the field, so it looks like in suffers from lack of heroes. nay, the two philosophers defend the position well given the page constraints they faced.
there is one issue running through the book i wished everyone had addressed in a more explicit matter, that is the difference in accepting the functional materialism of science versus the uncritical acceptance of a materialist world and life view of scientism. there is much confusion between the two, you can see it in much YEC criticism, in this book as well, of both progressive creationism and theistic evolution. naturalism is the idea that what we see is what we get, no god's behind the curtain, no skyhooks to come down and rescue us. there must be a distinction between how science uses this idea as a working hypothesis, as a functional means to an end, versus how a philosophy uses it as an axiom. of the 3 viewpoints, only vantil talks to the separation of the two. the YEC's fault the other two positions as if they accepted the materialism/naturalism as a deep committment in their systems. which as christian's is simply unacceptable from the beginning.
i liked the book. i think if you need a place to start it supplies one. however if you are already committed to a position you would be better off served by jumping straight to one of the major works in each viewpoint. and interact with that author without the polemics that form the debate structure of the book.
Friday, January 03, 2003
review on amazon about _beautiful mind_
--
I walked out of the movie and straight into the bookstore in the mall to get the book, read it that night. This is the reverse of my habit, which is to read the book before seeing the movie. The only thing in common between the movie and the book is the man, they are very different, but unlike most combinations these two are both good. The movie is written to get people into the theatres and to tell their friends what a good movie they saw. So it concentrates on the heroic parts of John Nash's life, the genius and the battle against it's flipside--the darkness of illusion brought on by mental illness. While it neglects the sordid(first son and girlfriend he never married), the weird(king of antartica) and replaces the object of the mindless data collection and analysis with government involvement.
I'd like to expand on the heroic, that part of both the book and the movie that we cheer for, tear up at, and generally find appealing. Most of us do not identify with either genius or with madness, we can see people here and there, mostly in books and movies, that pass over the lines. But we ourselves believe ourselves anchored in the plain, commonplace, ordinary so well that it is only at a distance that we can identify with characters like John Nash. We can feel sorry, and then joy with him but we can not feel like him, unless we have been through what he did. But we can identify with his heroic struggle, with his passion to have a unique and original thought, to be the very most creative in his chosen field. This is what builds the movie. But not the book, for she shows him as a rat towards those who care for him. He is not very sympathatic a character, too often you can blame him for the bad choices, not his approaching storm of schzophrenia. This is the genius of the book that the movie neglects, in order to fill the seats. For you cry with a man whose life is a shambles not because we can experience either genius or madness but because we can participate with him in the common lot of mankind through the ages in trying to conquer ourselves. That battle with passions misdirected towards our destruction more often then towards our heroic challenges. Thanks for the book Ms. Nasar, and to John Nash, thanks for sharing your story and i'm sorry for your pain, and to the mental health professionals- can't you move a little bit faster towards fixing what ills us up there.
--
I walked out of the movie and straight into the bookstore in the mall to get the book, read it that night. This is the reverse of my habit, which is to read the book before seeing the movie. The only thing in common between the movie and the book is the man, they are very different, but unlike most combinations these two are both good. The movie is written to get people into the theatres and to tell their friends what a good movie they saw. So it concentrates on the heroic parts of John Nash's life, the genius and the battle against it's flipside--the darkness of illusion brought on by mental illness. While it neglects the sordid(first son and girlfriend he never married), the weird(king of antartica) and replaces the object of the mindless data collection and analysis with government involvement.
I'd like to expand on the heroic, that part of both the book and the movie that we cheer for, tear up at, and generally find appealing. Most of us do not identify with either genius or with madness, we can see people here and there, mostly in books and movies, that pass over the lines. But we ourselves believe ourselves anchored in the plain, commonplace, ordinary so well that it is only at a distance that we can identify with characters like John Nash. We can feel sorry, and then joy with him but we can not feel like him, unless we have been through what he did. But we can identify with his heroic struggle, with his passion to have a unique and original thought, to be the very most creative in his chosen field. This is what builds the movie. But not the book, for she shows him as a rat towards those who care for him. He is not very sympathatic a character, too often you can blame him for the bad choices, not his approaching storm of schzophrenia. This is the genius of the book that the movie neglects, in order to fill the seats. For you cry with a man whose life is a shambles not because we can experience either genius or madness but because we can participate with him in the common lot of mankind through the ages in trying to conquer ourselves. That battle with passions misdirected towards our destruction more often then towards our heroic challenges. Thanks for the book Ms. Nasar, and to John Nash, thanks for sharing your story and i'm sorry for your pain, and to the mental health professionals- can't you move a little bit faster towards fixing what ills us up there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)