|
À¯·´°úÇнÅÇÐȸ ¼Ò½ÄÁö(European Society for the Study of Science and Theology Newsletter, Mar 2007)ÀÇ ÆíÁýÀÎÀÌ ¹öŬ¸® GTUÀÇ CTNS ¼ÒÀåÀÎ Robert RussellÀÇ festschrift(¾Æ·¡ ÂüÁ¶) ¸¦ ¼Æò¿¡¼ ±×°÷¿¡ ½Ç¸° ±è±³¼öÀÇ µ¿¾Æ½Ã¾ÆÀû ÀÔÀå¿¡¼ Ian BarbourÀÇ ¹æ¹ý·Ð°ú ½ÅÇÐÀ» ¸¦ ºñÆÇÇÑ ³í¹®(¸µÅ© ÂüÁ¶) ¿¡ ¿ËÈ£ÀûÀÎ ³íÆòÀ» ÇÏ¸é¼ Æ¯º°ÇÑ °ü½ÉÀ» Ç¥¸íÇß´Ù.
(ÀÌÇÏ´Â ¼Æò Áß °ü·Ã ¹ßÃé¹®, ¼Æò Àü¹®Àº ¾Æ·¡ ¹®¼ 12-14 ÂÊ ÂüÁ¶) http://www.esssat.org/esssat_docs/esssat_17_1.pdf
Essay-Review: by Neil Spurway
GOD¡¯S ACTION IN NATURE¡¯S WORLD Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell Ted Peters & Nathan Hollinger (eds) Aldershot, UK: Ashgate (2006), 264 pp ISBN 0-7546-5556-3 (hbk) £35.00
----
Even more impossible to ignore is a contribution by the Korean theologian Heup Young Kim, which is different in kind from any of the others. His is a powerful polemic against assumptions in occidental thought (even that of the gentle Ian Barbour), which he finds arrogant. He quotes Wilfrid Cantwell Smith: ¡°The challenge of agnostic science will turn out to have been as child¡¯s play compared to the challenge ¡¦ of the faith of other men¡±. One aspect of the child¡¯s play, for Kim, is the very perception that bridges need to be built between science and theology; his first point is that it was the science brought by western missionaries which first attracted East Asian peoples to Christianity. If the tables are now to be turned, and eastern thought really influence the western cast of mind, ¡°the conception of God as the ¡®Absolute Nothingness¡¯ might be a theological strategy ¡¦ more profound than the notion of kenosis¡±. This Kim sees as ¡°an inevitable logical consequence of the conservative doctrines of a personal God and divine omnipotence¡± confronted with the problems of theodicy. When I turn back to Robert Russell, I have to say that I see Kim¡¯s point. The second Goshen lecture considers ¡®Natural theodicy and the New Creation¡¯. An account of evolution built upon the concept of NIODA must confront with particular directness the problem of natural evils. For Russell, ¡°the best response to cosmic theodicy is the future eschatological hope of a New Creation¡± (p. 33). While clearly struggling with the problem, he sees this position as having the strength that it shows theology-and-science as a research programme (38). Yet for the living sufferer, this is little comfort! Thus Carl Helrich, in his Editor¡¯s Preface, concludes that ¡°there is no Christian answer ¡¦ to the problem of suffering in nature ¡¦ there is only a Christian response.¡± The suffering cannot be redeemed, but the sufferer can be (7). This is the honest answer of the loving pastor. Yet the very expectation that the suffering ought to be redeemable is arguably the fault of western, mechanistic thought. Russell himself seems to come close at one point to such an acknowledgement, for he quotes with approbation John Hick¡¯s phrase, ¡°epistemic distance¡±, a distance between Creator and creation which is necessary if the creatures are to have moral freedom. ¡°The condition for a soul-making world is that the world must be as if there were no God¡± (35-6). Is this not Kim¡¯s ¡°Absolute Nothingness¡±, expressed in different words? But Russell, the westerner, then turns to eschatology, which Kim, I think, would not.
|
|