McGrath's Scientific Theology

I'd have to re-read his reasons again for semi-rejoicing in the post-modern, post-Enlightenment (he seems to see a real connection between these two) position that we're currently in. I think he is happy that we're in this post-modern period because it removes the opportunity to lay down concepts and models about God a priori, which I think he accuses the Enlightenment and modernity of doing. I think an example of this is creationism - if one states a priori that the universe and all it contains was made in seven 24 hour days, then the science and scientific conclusions that one draws hinge not around observation, but on a commitment to a specific worldview. McGrath is NOT a creationist, btw. I didn't intend this to step on any toes nor to draw anyone into a crisis of belief, but just to report how I understand his argument. FWIW, Dawkins makes the same error; he is committed to Darwinian Evolution (what we mean by the phrase) as to be 100%, absolutely true. (I guess it means that they view it as inerrant - oops!) As such, Dawkins would only accept a god who is entirely contained within the universe and evolved along with the universe. in other words, the evolution of god would correspond with the evolution of the universe and vice versa. He said this while interviewing McGrath, and the interview can be found on both Dawkins' and McGrath's respective websites.

As to his way of escaping the "post-modern rabbit hole", I think McGrath would answer with critical realism. In this form of realism, there is the relationship between the knower and what is known. It absolutely affirms the ontology of nature (for example), but does stress that the observer plays a role in discovering that ontology through methodology. I think this is how we're to understand his statement that nature is the outcome of the worldview. This contrasts naïve realism in that what is ontological there does not posit it's existence and nature of existence on the knower without the knower involved. Secondly, he avoids reductionism and anti-realism through the stratospheric view of reality. Sociology rests on psychology rests on biology rests on chemistry rests on physics. We may not understand or discover chemistry's methodology on the grounds of physics, for example, but the ontology of chemistry does rest on the physics and its methodology. As someone who's PhD dissertation in chemistry is near the chemistry/physics interface, this concept makes perfect sense to me.

Excellent Ben, I would probably continue the chain of related methodologies down into metaphysics which is underneath physics (a large portion of my undergrad was in physics btw). We may not understand or discover physics' methodology on the grounds of metaphysics, but the ontology of physics does rest on the metaphysics and a proper method in that arena. For me, I prefer theology to rote metaphysical reflection...for I believe in Revelation of the triune God in Jesus. Now, I will do metaphysical reflection and even argue a posteriori for the necessity of metaphysical underpinning for all knowing...but I don't assume the autonomous reasoning metaphysician is going to arrive any where without the aid of God.

Fun, fun, fun stuff :) You can see why academicians can get sucked into novelty and away from Christian theology - even when trying to do academic work grounded in that tradition. For many, speculation is fun - truth gets boring...unless of course you come to know the truth - then he sets you free.

"I will do metaphysical reflection and even argue a posteriori for the necessity of metaphysical underpinning for all knowing...but I don't assume the autonomous reasoning metaphysician is going to arrive any where without the aid of God." which underscores the complete necessity of a unified view of truth. That your metaphysical reflections actually matter in the common, everyday, real world. Dawkins just doesn't get this. He says faith becomes faith once reason is eclipsed - or once one has moved past reason. this would be true if the two are decoupled. sadly, for many, not all, in our evangelical world this is the case.

oh and i would stress to any and all not to take my understanding of McGrath's arguments to be 100% true. I don't think I understand it all in full. I would encourage all to read his works if possible. I'm an amateur at this stuff but I really enjoy thinking and talking about it.

sorry to fill up the comments section