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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)