Wolterstorff/Plantinga: The Rift Between Science and Theology - Center For Christian Thought
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июл 2012
- Biola University's Center For Christian Thought Presents:
An excerpt from the Full Discussion on "The Nature of Christian Scholarship" with Nicholas Wolterstorff and Alvin Plantinga moderated by Thomas Crisp. Nicholas Wolterstorff and Alvin Plantinga discuss the connection and the split between science and theology.
May 17, 2012
Wonderful. I took a course with professor Woltersdorf. Many years ago.
How I hope both Religion and Science could have a discourse such as this. The problem nowadays is the polemical approach from either side which lead to no better understanding for the most part.
If engagement in the intellectual spheres of both realms of inquiry could be done this way, there would be more new things to be discovered. I really notice that itʼs mostly the arrogance of scholars in these disciplines which hinder the progress of the said fields.
Thank you for this, Biola. I am a huge fan of both Dr. Alvin Plantinga and Dr. Nicholas Wolterstorff. May there be more philosophers like them in the decades to come.
God bless everyone!
Everything Plantinga claims was debunked in the 19th century!
As one with interests in and practice in both science and theology, I was looking forward to these two "giants" addressing the topic at hand :) Be it as it may, I found their comments on the presuppositions that lie between Christians and non-Christians as well as the benefit of philosophy in engaging with world ideas as helpful. There's much to learn from all sorts of people, God's common grace to all is a factor that is many times unconsidered.
I think Plantinga decently adresses both 'constraints on science'. But doesn't really demonstrate his points.
a) you can indeed talk about 'schmeince' as being science without the limits of methodolical naturalism... now what does this bring extra to the table of knowlegde or 'methodology for learning'? There is nothing usefull or true that comes from this 'new definition' that science (as it is defined) doesn't already answer. it could in theory.. but it doesn't in practice
b) same goes for 'testomony'.. that is indeed a very important way 'to know or learn things'. But you cannot get new ideas or knowledge from it, that no-one else already possesed. It's not a methodology for 'learning' (in the global sense). [fe: you cannot come up with a theory for gravity, by testemony... if someone has a theory, you can learn it from him by testomony. But that is a big difference!
Nevertheless this does not negate the Scriptural command for separation.
@@Senkino5o Would you mind expounding a bit regarding your comment. I cannot decipher what you meant by it. Thanks
great insight.
Hard to follow, cause of the way of speaking
The rift is in your head, not in a scientists mind. The more people try to argue the science behind their faith, the weaker their faith is.
Why don't smart people comb their hair?
Grass doesn't grow well on a busy street. :)
Rift? Rift? Science is real and theology is IMAGINARY!! How's that?
Are you saying energy is real but not soul?
Laws of metaphysics can impregnate matter. Even at a micro level the bindiing agent in an atom making the inmates like electron, neutron etc etc....to stick to their paradigms is termed as God particle. You see, science has just bridged the gap of ignorance by calling it god particle......lol
What is real? We know that which is real exists, but for something to be real and to exist there must be a medium of distinction between that which exists and that which does not. And how can that medium itself exist? This is the rift. To accept that only that which is material can exist defeats itself, because there exists such a system which allows abstractions to become material.
@@coreygossman6243
Pure garbage.
rstevewarmorycom . You have really mastered the art of question-begging. “Theology is imaginary because it is not science”, is the essence of your non-argument. Crack a few philosophy books by both theist and atheist thinkers, and try again.
rstevewarmorycom . You possess the rare ability to make blanket assertions without an iota of supporting argument. Merely stating something does not make it so, no matter how much you wish for it to be so.