Robert Boyle FRS: distinguished scientist and Christian

Robert Boyle (1627-1691) was one of the founders of the Royal Society and of the field of chemistry. It is worth reading the Wikipedia entry about his theological interests. One of his last books was The Christian Virtuoso (above) which set forth arguments for a clockwork universe created by God. The first new biography of Boyle to appear in a generation is Robert Boyle: between God and science, by Michael Hunter (University of London) has just been published by Yale University Press. An essay review of the book by Colin Gauld is available here.

Can you see the wood for the trees?

I have finished my first draft of the resource article on emergence for Test of Faith.
I welcome feedback.

Finding similarities and differences in interfaith dialogue

This week I encountered a new term, "Judeo-Islamic tradition." It occurs in an interview with Mark Cohen in the latest issue of the Princeton Alumni Weekly. He states:

The term “Judeo-Christian tradition” only became popular after World War I and especially after the rise of Nazism in Europe. In fact, Judaism is much closer to Islam in its belief system and practice than it is to Christianity. My emeritus colleague Bernard Lewis coined the term “Judeo-Islamic tradition” to describe it.

I think this illustrates a profoundly important difference. Islam and Judaism are based on law. Christianity is based on grace.

When swearing is no private matter

I was part of an interesting discussion this morning about the etymology of the word testify and whether it is connected to testicles! The best discussion I could find online is at the Random House Word of the Day.
There it is suggested that there is no connection in Latin or Greek but there may be in Hebrew, going back ot Genesis 24:

²And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh, ³that I may make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and God of the earth.

Any Old Testament experts want to weigh in?

There are no self-made men

^{When we are successful most of would like to think [even if only on the sub-conscious level] that it is because of our own initiative, efforts, abilities, cleverness, .... But how much is any success I experience just a gift a God, which should lead to thankfulness, humility, and generosity. I always find the following passage from Deuteronomy 8 rather challenging. It is Moses sermon warning the Israelites before they enter the promised land.}

¹¹"Take care lest you forget the LORD your God by not keeping his commandments and his rules and his statutes, which I command you today, ¹² lest, when you have eaten and are full and have built good houses and live in them, ¹³and when your herds and flocks multiply and your silver and gold is multiplied and all that you have is multiplied, ¹⁴ then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, ¹⁵who led you through the great and terrifying wilderness, with its fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground where there was no water, who brought you water out of the flinty rock, ¹⁶who fed you in the wilderness with manna that your fathers did not know, that he might humble you and test you, to do you good in the end. ¹⁷Beware lest you say in your heart, 'My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.' ¹⁸You shall remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day.

The passage challenges me a personal level. But to me, it also raises some political questions, particularly to conservatives who strongly advocate everyone "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" and the wealthy keeping all their money because they "deserve it" and "have earned it." What do others think?

 The painting is The grapes of the Promised Land by Nicholas Poussin (1594-1665).

Fallen scholars

What should be our attitude towards the work of German scholars who were members of the Nazi party? Two cases have bought this to mind in the past week. In the previous post, I gave a quote from Karl Barth who favourably mentioned the work of the theologian Emmanuel Hirsch, who I discovered was a member of the Nazi party. Karl Barth was the principal author of the Barmen Declaration and was forced to resign from his position at Bonn University because he refused to swear an oath to Hitler. Hence, he was hardly sympathetic to National Socialism!
The second example of a fallen scholar from the Nasi era iis the philosopher Martin Heidigger. The Wikipedia page concerning him makes fascinating reading. He was author of one of the most influential books in philosophy in the twentieth century. When Rector [i.e. President or Vice-chancellor] of Freiburg University he made speeches in support of Hitler. Those significantly influenced by Heidigger include Rudolf Bultmann, Gadamer, and Derrrida.

I can think of three several possible attitudes towards the scholarly work of such people:
* Outright dismissal fueled by moral indignation
* Turning a blind eye and hoping that their philosophy and theology was completely unrelated to their political involvement.
* Cautious critique which acknowledges that one can never completely separate philosophy, theology, political views, and personal choices. But justice, punishment, compassion, and humility should not be separated either.

I am eager to hear other perspectives.

The beginning of pluralism

Stimulated by a discussion about doubt with a friend I have been re-reading the chapter Doubt in Karl Barth's Evangelical Theology: an introduction. It is really stimulating and helpful. But this post is just to note how I was intrigued with the following claim:

doubt can also have its cause in the community that encircles the theologian, in the feebleness, disunity, and perhaps even the perverseness of the form and proclamation of his own familiar Church. The great crisis of Christian faith, as well as of Christian theology, that arose in the seventeenth century did not have its primary basis in the rise of modern science, for instance, or of the absolute state which later also became religiously indifferent. According to the illuminating hypothesis of Emmanuel Hirsch, this crisis arose prior to all such shocks, simply in the painfully confusing fact of the stable juxtaposition and opposition of three different churches. Sealed officially and demonstratively in the Peace of Westphalia, these three different confessions each represented exclusive claims to revelation which relativized the claims of each. Subsequent acquaintance with the great non-Christian religions of the Near and Far East underlined this relativity still more painfully.