Introduction
The book helps to understand the difference between faith with science. It does not give us much detail , but help clarify and simply the difference between the world of science and we finding God in it. Another thing that I find helpful is its connection with variety of Pentecostal perspectives.
In view of science
Theologians have, at times, attempted to use the idea of spirit as a metaphor for physical realities without acknowledging that a the words science and nature play no role in the definition of theology, while the term God does not appear in the description of physics. Both the scientist and the theologian will caution that the tools of learning physics are not intended as instruments to address the concerns of faith. Theology and physics are not opposites they simply seem to have nothing to do with each other one particular reason for this separation is the experimental aspect of physics. Theology, after all, may include the experience of a divine manifestation, but one can certainly not speak of an experiment with God. Algebra, geometry, calculator syntax, motion graphs, vectors, and other tools cannot measure the existence of God, nor are they intended to do so. The main difference between physics and theology therefore seems to lie in the respective methods of each discipline, the former based on the empirical observation of nature, the latter on the revelation of that which is not directly discernable from the physical universe. The second section of the book looks into questions of natural science. In chapter four, Vondey talks about how following in the footsteps of Einstein and Newton there is a possibility for discussion of a spirit when dealing with science and the universe. Vondey, in sometimes verbose and scientific language, tries to describe why both Einstein and Newton fall short of truly engaging in a truly theological engagement with science. He ends by saying that there needs to be discussion between Pentecostals and physicists but admits that theology will probably not provide the answers that physicists are looking for. It also talks about the diverse beliefs Pentecostals hold in trying to bring science and the spirit together, and they also talk about the various ways this plays out in Pentecostal churches. Ware, on the other hand, discusses neuroimaging and consciousness in relation to Pentecostal experience, and comes to the conclusion that while science provides some explanation for religious experience, it should not be Pentecostal's primary reason for their belief.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In view of Theology.
It proposes God as the main source of creation who is then put as completely extraordinary over the made request. God is mover however not moved, the principal cause yet not the proceeding with reason for creation. in its place, Pentecostals have more than once stressed the significance of perceiving the task of the Spirit inside the made request and, if the idea of causality is kept up, inside the causal relationship of the universe. God is present in the natural world. Space and time accounted for the existence but not the activity of all things. God is the ultimate cause of all natural phenomena and therefore wrestled with the existence of an intermediary agent between God and the world.
The strength and weakness of the Authors Approach
In my honest point of view, the book covers such a variety of topics, that I would not really be able to suggest it to a foundations level student in a bible school or seminary student that tends toward the Pentecostal perspective. The Author would probably have to pick and choose which topics to cover because some of the authors are verbose and use very content-heavy language which might be confusing to first-time freshmen. I am not sure how good this book would be for most introductory level foundations of ministry courses. The use of scientific words and other vocabulary maybe confusing to the reader for the first time, especially if the reader has no in-depth knowledge of science.
Principles from the chapter
The book ended with some thoughts from Cheek on the dominance of technology in Pentecostal churches. He ends talking about six principles that may help us further use technology in a responsible fashion. The book also covers such a variety of topics,
How theology interacts with science
The general analysis of nature, conducted to understand how the world around us behaves. Theology, on the other hand, is described as reasoned discourse about God, with particular application to Christianity. The words science and nature play no role in the definition of theology, while the term God does not appear in the description of physics. Both the scientist and the theologian will caution that the tools of learning physics are not intended as instruments to address the concerns of faith. Theology and physics are not opposites they simply seem to have nothing to do with each other. One particular reason for this separation is the experimental aspect of physics. Theology, after all, may include the experience of a divine manifestation, but one can certainly not speak of an experiment with God. There is the reality of empirical study, and there is the level of theoretical constructs which attempt to make the empirical data more intelligible.
What this means is that science is, by its nature, an open-ended process which is not complete until all the data have been gathered and accounted for. But, if new and unexpected data are discovered, this may lead to a change in the theoretical constructs in which scientific information is organized. Science, by reason of its very nature, is susceptible to significant change. But if the scientific picture of reality changes, what will happen to the theology that is constructed in relation to that science? This must mean that a theology which attempts to take scientific insights seriously will not be a final and definitive theology. We are, therefore, talking about an ongoing theological project, not
about a final, definitive system of theological truth. Another important implication of this is the fact that science, precisely as science, can describe those things which it finds actually existing in the cosmos. But, precisely as science, it cannot talk about what might be the deepest meaning of existence. Yet, it is hard to read the descriptions of scientists without feeling questions of meaning emerging through it all. And the cosmos described by science will raise important questions for the thinking believer. This means that if theologians and believers in general in today’s world were to do here and now what the scholastics did for their time and place, they would be striving to create a road map of reality in which the descriptions and models of science can be brought into contact with a framework of religious meaning and values. Such a project would enable believers to come to a more effective understanding of the nature and role of humanity in such a cosmos and thus to live with a deeper sense of meaning and purpose.
Finally, in locating God in the Universe The student of modern physics is confronted with a wide range of challenges. Classical wave theory, relativistic dynamics, quantum mechanics and its applications to atomic physics, nuclear physics, particle physics, solid state physics, or statistical physics may comprise just a small part of a given course. The classic challenge between theory and praxis is stretched out in the Wolfgang Vondey classroom among readings, lectures, discussions, problem assignments, exams, computer simulations, and laboratory work. All of these tools according to Vondey expose the student to the fascinating phenomena of the natural world. As in most sciences, the tools of the physicist are specific to the discipline. Theological questions are not in the immediate purview of physics. To put it differently, scientific inquiry is not intended to pursue questions of faith. The main difference between physics and theology therefore seems to lie in the respective methods of each discipline, the former based on the empirical observation of nature, the latter on the revelation of that which is not directly discernable from the physical universe. In other words, one might argue that the study of physics is an intentional pursuit of human beings for the purpose of understanding nature. The study called theology, on the other hand, although it is also a deliberate human and cultural pursuit, is more intimately connected with the revelation or self- manifestation of God’s presence in the world.
Does God Have a Place in the Physical Universe? Physics and the Quest for the Holy Spirit Wolfgang Vondey
This chapter considers the challenges of the Pentecostal charismatic Christian who wishes to engage the physical sciences. The separation of physics and theology is characterized as primarily a separation of method rather than a difference of content. The author suggests that a spirit-oriented approach to the physical universe has significant implications for the observation and explanation of natural phenomena from both a scientific and a theological perspective. This pneumatological method is illustrated in the work of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein and in the integration of the notion of spirit in their understanding of the physical universe. Its elaborate both epistemologically and experimentally, that the concept of spirit opens the doors for Pentecostals to engage physics explicitly as Pentecostals. From a Pentecostal charismatic perspective, the Spirit filled physicist is perhaps the image that best represents the unity of physics and theology.
In conclusion, to look at the cosmos through the eyes of science today is to look at the concrete processes through which God brings us into being and sustains us. To know nature more deeply is to gain a richer sense of its remarkable mystery. The cosmos, today as always, can truly speak to us of God. But what it says may be difficult for us to discern. We can still see. Yet we see through a glass darkly (1 Cor 13:12), and many find it difficult to see at all.
Stuck on your essay?
