RickyReformed
Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by Paul manata
btw, he brings up some interesting "apparent contradictions" in the natural world (e.g., electrons having both wave and particle attributes, and yes, he calls them apparent contradictions). I'll be continuing my reductio and salvation of Van Til by proving that there are paradoxes in general revelation, i.e., the natural order so stay tuned....
Me again, Paul. As one of the resident Cheungians on the board, let me offer this quote from Vincent Cheung's "Systematic Theology", pg 18, http://www.rmiweb.org/books/theology2003.pdf
But it is popular to encourage a tolerance toward contradictions in theology. Alister
McGrath writes in his Understanding Doctrine:
The fact that something is paradoxical and even self-contradictory
does not invalidate it…Those of us who have worked in the
scientific field are only too aware of the sheer complexity and
mysteriousness of reality. The events lying behind the rise of
quantum theory, the difficulties of using models in scientific
explanation – to name but two factors which I can remember
particularly clearly from my own period as a natural scientist –
point to the inevitability of paradox and contradiction in any except
the most superficial engagement with reality…
This is nonsense. Granting that McGrath knows science well enough to speak on the
subject, this is a testimony against science, and not an argument for tolerating
contradictions in theology. He assumes the reliability of science and judges all other
disciplines by it. To paraphrase him, if there are contradictions in science, then
contradictions must be acceptable, and one must tolerate them when it comes to
theological reflection as well.
However, one reason to reject the reliability of science is precisely because it often
contradicts itself.
I'm not expecting to change anybody's mind though; just thought I'd offer a different perspective.