Back
to top
PRE-U philosophy - polkinghorne
Watch this threadPage 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Blondebarbie2005
Badges:
9
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
I am currently studying polkinghorne the search for understanding as part of my PRE-U philosophy exam but I have no idea what he means and what’s going on
if anyone could help that would be great 
if anyone could help that would be great 
0
reply
Joe312
Badges:
17
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report
#2
Polkinghorne basically argues that theology should stand in relation to science.
Polkinghorne argues that if theology is to regain its medieval status as the Queen of the sciences, it must not attempt to prescribe answers to other disciplines like the physical sciences. Theology must accept their answers to their questions but then provide its own answers to its own questions which means it will have the ‘most profound context available’ attaining the ‘deepest possible level of understanding’. Science provides scientific knowledge which the theologian must accept and use as part of their final answer to theological questions.
To illustrate, Polkinghorne argues theologians cannot ‘satisfactorily speak’ about creation without taking into account the actual nature of the world. Though he argues it is just as bad when scientists claim the total significance of the world can be summed up only with a scientific description of physical processes. Both science and theology are incomplete without the other and must communicate. Natural theology is the subject area where that happens. It is the search of knowledge of God by reason and study of the world.
Polkinghorne argues that if theology is to regain its medieval status as the Queen of the sciences, it must not attempt to prescribe answers to other disciplines like the physical sciences. Theology must accept their answers to their questions but then provide its own answers to its own questions which means it will have the ‘most profound context available’ attaining the ‘deepest possible level of understanding’. Science provides scientific knowledge which the theologian must accept and use as part of their final answer to theological questions.
To illustrate, Polkinghorne argues theologians cannot ‘satisfactorily speak’ about creation without taking into account the actual nature of the world. Though he argues it is just as bad when scientists claim the total significance of the world can be summed up only with a scientific description of physical processes. Both science and theology are incomplete without the other and must communicate. Natural theology is the subject area where that happens. It is the search of knowledge of God by reason and study of the world.
0
reply
Blondebarbie2005
Badges:
9
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
(Original post by Joe312)
Polkinghorne basically argues that theology should stand in relation to science.
Polkinghorne argues that if theology is to regain its medieval status as the Queen of the sciences, it must not attempt to prescribe answers to other disciplines like the physical sciences. Theology must accept their answers to their questions but then provide its own answers to its own questions which means it will have the ‘most profound context available’ attaining the ‘deepest possible level of understanding’. Science provides scientific knowledge which the theologian must accept and use as part of their final answer to theological questions.
To illustrate, Polkinghorne argues theologians cannot ‘satisfactorily speak’ about creation without taking into account the actual nature of the world. Though he argues it is just as bad when scientists claim the total significance of the world can be summed up only with a scientific description of physical processes. Both science and theology are incomplete without the other and must communicate. Natural theology is the subject area where that happens. It is the search of knowledge of God by reason and study of the world.
Polkinghorne basically argues that theology should stand in relation to science.
Polkinghorne argues that if theology is to regain its medieval status as the Queen of the sciences, it must not attempt to prescribe answers to other disciplines like the physical sciences. Theology must accept their answers to their questions but then provide its own answers to its own questions which means it will have the ‘most profound context available’ attaining the ‘deepest possible level of understanding’. Science provides scientific knowledge which the theologian must accept and use as part of their final answer to theological questions.
To illustrate, Polkinghorne argues theologians cannot ‘satisfactorily speak’ about creation without taking into account the actual nature of the world. Though he argues it is just as bad when scientists claim the total significance of the world can be summed up only with a scientific description of physical processes. Both science and theology are incomplete without the other and must communicate. Natural theology is the subject area where that happens. It is the search of knowledge of God by reason and study of the world.
I think in chapter 4 he talks about God as the creator yet says that science is needed to explain religion and vice verse. I’m just unsure on how you can have a concept of God as a creator who works with science? Surely he’s indicating a concept of ‘God of the gaps’? I understand you shouldn’t interpret it literally but does it not go against God’s nature of being all powerful?
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
