Abstract

This article responds to Stanley J. Grenz's Templeton Lecture, “Why Do Theologians Need to Be Scientists?” published in the June 2000 issue of Zygon (Grenz 2000). In the first part I outline my reasons for finding the kind of theological reflections in which Grenz engages worthy of attention by noting my disagreement with the view that a sufficient response to theological issues can be formulated on the basis of an examination of our biological nature. I assert, in that connection, the autonomy of reason as a way of investigating and understanding the world. In the second part I respond directly to Grenz by explaining my disagreement with the postmodern critique of science upon which he relies and his adherence to Christian eschatology as an answer to the conundrums into which, he posits, we are drawn as a result of that critique. I note that I agree with Grenz, however, that the activity of valuing is necessarily a forward‐looking Godlike endeavor that is not derivable from science. In the third part I suggest that we must be open to the investigation of the possible existence of an objective realm of value and that, in any case, rejection of the postmodern critique of science in many cases pro‐vides a sound basis for the disciplined resolution of factual questions that frequently lie at the base of disagreements about values.

Keywords

aesthetic‐religious continuum, Thomas Hobbes, Êautonomy of reason, Eugene d'Aquili, liberal individualism, mind, science, naturalistic fallacy, philosophical realism, Andrew Newberg, postmodernism, Christian eschatology, foundational, objective realm of value, Michael Cavanaugh, Êanthropic principle, Stanley Grenz, Thomas Kuhn, Thomas Nagel, theology, creation of a new being, mechanism and value, solipsism, Godlike powers, absolute unitary being

How to Cite

Rights