Critical Evaluation Of The Theodical Arguments Advanced By Wolfhart Pannenberg Essay

In chapter two of the book “Problems from Philosophy”, by James Rachels, the author guided us through the process in which the topic of God and the origin of the universe was discussed and argued. There were many arguments many arguments towards this topic from both a religious belivers view point, and a non-believer. The main points in this chapter were the arguments, like the argument from design, the best-explanation argument, the same-evidence argument, the theory of Natural selection, and the first cause argument.

We consider the universe to be a dynamic sense of natural forces that are most effectively understood by scientific inquiry. We are always open to the discovery of new possibilities and phenomena in nature. However we find that traditional views on the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative.”

In this paper, I will discuss how three influential scholars in this order: Augustine, Aquinas, Galileo, delimit science or the bible and the ways their beliefs overlapped or didn’t.

When dwelling into the explorations about science and religion, one can find it quite amusing. "If science and religion are to continue to coexist it seems opposed to the conditions of modern thought to admit that this result can be brought about by the so-called

There are many topics that science and religion have opposing views on and continue to debate. One of these subjects that has received a great deal of attention and has placed an enormous wedge between the two realms is the varying opinions concerning the creation of the universe. For nearly a century, scientists have explained this phenomenon with the Big Bang theory, whereas spiritual thinkers have long placed their faith in the Genesis creation account. Both submit valid arguments, however, it is ultimately up to each individual to decide which testimony to accept as truth and to consider if it is possible that both opinions could co-exist.

He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak: as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”[v] Though Jastrow treats the issue as settled and declares that scientists have finally been “defeated,” it is too early to reach any judgements on the implications the new cosmology has for both science and religion. Our image of the origin of the universe is not yet complete and further investigations must be conducted before the towel is thrown in. Science has still much to offer to help us understand how the universe came to be. Therefore, let us now attempt to solve the cosmic mystery of creation by referring to the great scientific minds as our guide. Let us now rewind the story of the big bang and look into the origins of the universe.

For years, theologians and scientists have debacled as to which theories could be categorized as correct as opposed to incorrect theologies. On a larger scale, these individuals debate the question of the universe’s origin, as well as the origin of life itself. Some of the most contemplated questions theologians face are those that include thoughts regarding the creation of all living things. Whether or not all things that currently inhabit the world are derived from a single act that has yet to be defined, or if it perhaps the result of a combination of random, yet coinciding, events?

During the twentieth century people began to believe that all human knowledge was scientific knowledge. Research either proved or disproved theories of the earth’s origin. People began to question the supremacy of science on the basis of the very premises that brought it to power, namely, objectivity, and rationality. 1. These developments created a resurgence of interest in philosophy as a discipline. For theology as a discipline, it presented an opportunity for acceptance and credibility. While remaining true to the tradition of our faith it is imperative that we theologize in such a way as to bring to Christianity integrity and an intellectual uniqueness that integrates and gives sense to the varied and diverse dimensions of the modern experience. One can exercise critical thinking and still hold fast to fundamental persuasions and ties of faith. To practice one’s faith responsibly, a person requires an understanding of philosophical

First of all, I appreciate Barbour’s praiseworthy and toilsome effort to put theology and science in a meaningful and fruitful dialogue, by seriously taking account of both continuities and discontinuities between scientific metaphors and religious metaphors. For Barbour, because both disciplines have continuities and discontinuities they can contribute to our more comprehensive understanding of the reality of our experiences in the world through their metaphorical relationship. While scientific models, theories, and paradigms are focused on the explanation of natural phenomena, the religious counterparts are more focused on the human experience of their natural/social environments and evoking moral and attitudinal responses, while religious affirmations do not exclude truth claims like the scientific claims do. Also, like religion, scientists also hold on to their traditions in their observation and interpretation of natural phenomena; hence, they are not neutral. In that sense, I agree with Barbour that science and religion bear significant similitude, while they can complement each other in our holistic understanding of our world.

Canale highlights the principles of scientific method. Furthermore, he focuses on modernity’s use of methodology within the science. He considers the various influences attributed to other theologians using scientific method within their study. He examines discoveries attributed to Aristotle, Kant, and Descartes as well as Pannenberg, Macquarrie, Ebeling, and Muller. He explains how biblical theology derived from the challenges associated within systemic theology; resulting in the development of various meta-theologies from fundamental theology. Consequently, the science of theology encompasses various disciplines, divisions and meta-theologies. Canale surmises a four-fold pattern emerges as the foundation for both the divided and practical theologies in categories. Furthermore, the nature of the discipline and the requirements regarding the conditions established include:

As man's capacities in logical revelation developed, despite the fact that science as a discipline was at first intended to be an investigation of God's Creation and along these lines God Himself as said by Romans 1.20, eventually man’s confidence began to overtake his need for reflection upon God or even the need for God to answer what questions man was unable to answer. Man got himself more capable

John Frame’s The Doctrine of God tackles seemingly complex topics from a theological perspective. These topics include the idea of creation ex nihilo, God’s efficacious control, and metaphysical preservation. As these themes are unpacked from the points of view of both science and Christian theology, examination of scripture becomes crucial. In order to study and understand what Frame writes about, one must stand firmly upon one fundamental fact: “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it. The world and all its people belong to Him (Ps. 24:1, NLT).” The biblical truth of God’s ownership over the universe allows for a deeper understanding of science.

What is the relationship between religion and science? In his book, Consilience, Edward O. Wilson aims to find a unified theory of knowledge. Consilence also seeks to show how science is superior to and can replace religion. In this paper, I intend to show how Wilson understands this relationship and science as well as how. as well as show John Stuart Mill would agree or disagree with Wilson.

Since the dawn of mankind religion has been one of the most significant elements of a society’s social and cultural beliefs and actions. However, this trend has declined due to the general increase in knowledge regarding our the natural sciences. Where we had previously attributed something that we didn’t understand to the working of a higher power, is now replaced by a simple explanation offered by natural sciences. While advocates of Religion may question Natural Sciences by stating that they are based on assumptions, it is important to note the Natural Sciences are based on theories and principles which can be proven using mathematical equations and formulas. Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data

ABSTRACT: Curiously, in the late twentieth century, even agnostic cosmologists like Stephen Hawking—who is often compared with Einstein—pose metascientific questions concerning a Creator and the cosmos, which science per se is unable to answer. Modern science of the brain, e.g. Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind (1994), is only beginning to explore the relationship between the brain and the mind-the physiological and the epistemic. Galileo thought that God's two books-Nature and the Word-cannot be in conflict, since both have a common author: God. This entails, inter alia, that science and faith are to two roads to the Creator-God. David Granby recalls that once upon a time,