(T)he magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty).This sounds simple enough, but seems insufficient to explain the recent escalation of rhetoric in America over science and religion, theism and atheism, creation and evolution, and church and state. The controversy widens each day as presidential candidates jab each other over doctrinal tenets, the House passes legislation "Protecting" Christmas, and atheist authors top the 2007 best sellers lists. Clearly, if people accepted the NOMA concept, the conflict wouldn't exist to the degree that it does. Among the evangelical christian circles that I have been a part of, NOMA has been only partially embraced. More often, Christians seeking to make a case for their faith will subject it to the purely modern rigors of scientific inquiry, utilizing traditional apologetics to "explain" their doctrines or beliefs. In the face of arguments set forth by atheist rationalists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and in light of modern scientific knowledge and scholarship, traditional apologetic arguments (such as those posited by Lee Strobel and even C.S. Lewis), appear impotent.
A new apologetic is needed, one that is relevant to the postmodern, deconstructionist mindset. There are those postmodern Christian apologists such as Caputo and McLaren who are developing new ways of approaching the Christian faith. In the blog A New Kind of Conversation, Myron B. Penner summarizes a new apologetic thus:
"From the Christian point of view, the truth about Christianity cannot be found in modern-styled objectivity. Not only does the essence of Christianity concern the desperate need of humans and God’s gracious (and personal) response to our need, but it also starts with the assumption that human being (including human reason) is unable to save itself. Christian truth presumes to master us, rather than to be mastered by us. In this case, whenever I try to establish the fundamental reasonability of Christianity in modern terms I remove its fundamental “offense” to reason and transform Christianity into something domestic, with nothing other than a cognitive claim on my life. Christianity, however, is a way of being, or what Kierkegaard calls an “actuality”—a way of living with and before God—and not just a cognitive event involving intellectual assent to a set of propositions."I'd be interested in hearing what both religious and secular folks have to add to this conversation.
1 comment:
I find it interesting that the word "Christianity" is not found in the Bible. What we have struggled over for centuries is not even taken up in scripture. As we try to put a stake in the ground somewhere to define who we are and how to actualize our faith, are we perhaps missing something? I mean, could it be that somewhere along the way we've gotten off the track? That's a very real possibility that we have to consider.
As we try to relate faith to life and to science we take our eyes off the key object of faith, who is a person. God is not presented in the Bible as an idea, a concept, or a set of beliefs, an axiom to be proven. He is a Person with Whom we can have to do. To try to reconcile faith and science is difficult at best and doomed to failure at worst because we're dealing on two different planes. And all the time we're doing it we're missing out on being with the One who loves us so much.
His Kingdom is a Kingdom of love. You don't measure love, you don't sort it, you don't catalog it. You receive it and you share it. You experience love. You experience Him.
Post a Comment