Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Science and Religion: Who and Why v What and When

Science and Religion: Who and Why v What and When

Ratings: (0)|Views: 761|Likes:
Published by nm_campbell
How appropriate is the dichotomy proposed by the non-overlapping magisterum model for understanding the relationship between science and Christian belief.
How appropriate is the dichotomy proposed by the non-overlapping magisterum model for understanding the relationship between science and Christian belief.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: nm_campbell on Jul 20, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Who and Why versus the How and the When: does this dichotomy enable us toreconcile the doctrines of God the Creator and God the Revealer?Abstract
This paper discusses modern interpretations of the Genesis creation account andtheir historical antecedents. It briefly charts the development of the understanding of the relationship between science (the study of general revelation) and theology (thestudy of special revelation), through the conduits of science, and philosophy, anddoctrinal, and hermeneutical questions. It will consider historical views on therelationship between special and general revelation from Augustine, Calvin, Luther,Bacon, and Kepler, and modern views from the “new atheists,” Answers in Genesis,Alvin Plantinga, and the BioLogos Foundation.This paper will suggest serious problems exist with both concordist andaccommodationist approaches to the creation account of Genesis 1, and that the“who and why versus what and when” dichotomy applies unhelpful categories toour understanding of the passage. It will further suggest that the issue at hand is oneof developing a Christ centred hermeneutic for both special and general revelation.
“Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should takeall means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorancein a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual isderided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held suchopinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of ourScripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men... Reckless and incompetentexpounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren whenthey are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those whoare not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolishand obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and evenrecite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “theyunderstand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” – 
The Literal Meaning of Genesis,
Chapter 19
 “Since the infinite wisdom of God is displayed in the admirable structure of heaven and earth,it is absolutely impossible to unfold the history of the creation of the world in terms equal toits dignity. For while the measure of our capacity is too contracted to comprehend things of such magnitude, our tongue is equally incapable of giving a full and substantial account of them.” Calvin, Commentary on Genesis
As geological, astronomical, and biological thought developed, a plainreading of the Bible became difficult to reconcile with a scientific reading of the world. Several solutions have been tabled for this apparent disjunct.These solutions can be divided into three philosophical categories. Thatscience and theology occupy Non Overlapping Magisterum (NOMA),concordism and accommodationism.Concordists believe that the scientific evidence will match the Biblicalaccount. Accommodationists believe that the creation account used languageto accommodate for the knowledge of its original readers, and thus scienceand theology answer different questions about the world. Young EarthCreationists (YEC), and certain Old Earth Creationist (OEC) theories adoptthis position.
 Accommodationists believe that the language of the Bible accommodated thelimited understanding of its original audience, and that a scientific reading of the book of creation was unavailable to them. Thus, modern science and biblical interpretation can accommodate each other. The Framework theory isa related literary approach that holds that Genesis must be understood as a
Old Earth concordist theories include the day age theory, where each day of creationrepresents a geological epoch, see H. Ross and G. L. Archer, ‘The Day Age View,’
The GenesisDebate: Three Views on the Days of Creation,
ed. D.G Hagopian, (Mission Viejo, Cruxpress,2001), 123-164, and gap theory, where the Genesis account describes a young humanity in anold earth (with a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2) see D. Wilkinson, ‘Reading Genesis 1-3 inthe Light of Modern Science,’
Reading Genesis After Darwin,
ed S.C Barton and D.WWilkinson, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009), 136
literary and theological framework for understanding Scripture and theworld.
 Philosophers, scientists,
and theologians have suggested the NOMA positionis the best articulation of the relationship between science and theology. It isthis position that has perhaps popularised the dichotomy between “who andwhy” and “how and when.” This dichotomy is valid only in that “who andwhy” are the theological questions driving us to interpret Scripture, but theseparation is not so easy.
 Old Earth Creation (OEC) approaches to the world that do not dismiss thefindings of modern science often represent a fusion of the NOMA andaccommodationist positions.Both concordists and accommodationists claim support from significantfigures from church history, including Augustine, John Calvin, and Martin
L. Irons, and M. G. Kline, ‘The Framework View,’
The Genesis Debate,
S.J. Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria,"
Natural History
106 (March 1997): 16-22, accessed 7 June, 2011, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html, C. Hyers, ‘TheNarrative Form of Genesis One, Cosmogenic, Yes; Scientific, No,’
 Journal of the AmericanScientific Affiliation
36.4 (1984) 208-15, 215 suggests science and theology operate at rightangles along different planes of thought. A. Einstein, ‘Science and Religion,’
Science,Philosophy, and Religion, A 1934 Symposium
 , (Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religionin Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc, New York, 1941), See also, A. Einstein,‘Religion and Science,’
The World as I See It,
(Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, OpenRoad Integrated Media Digital Edition), Locations 514-580,
“Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there existbetween the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that whichdetermines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means willcontribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who arethoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding... The situation may beexpressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
C.E Hummel,
The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts Between Science and the Bible,
(Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, 1986), 215-217 suggests that to make the interpretation of Genesis a matter of “how” not “who” or “why” pushes us away from the theme of thepassage, suggesting that as God’s people the “how” is not important. This is not entirelyrepresentative of a Biblical doctrine of creation because it is important that God created by hisword, in the beginning. Two elements of the Genesis account.

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->