Symbols as a Means of Resolving the Paradox of Science vs Revelation
Both Polkinghorne and Peacocke suggest the use of symbols to resolve the paradox of combing science with revelation. To Polkinghorne, acknowledging the limits of objective, rational thought does not imply foregoing the quest for scientific understanding and order. However, it may lead to more open experiences from which to draw upon than just that of the quantitative, symbolic language of mathematics.1 To Peacocke, symbols remain the most “accurate and sensitive” expression “of human consciousness and personal relations” as found in the arts and theology. Thus, the language of personal experience and personal relations has a reality that emerges from humanity, not necessarily as apart of the physical human body—but a part from it.2 Neither Polkinghorne nor Peacocke include observations from the artistic community, yet both affirm as part of God’s plan through natural theology the exploratory role of chance, sensory experience, and the arts. It is a realization of life’s potential.3 Science does not encompass the arts, music, dance, literature, poetry, film and so much more, but the real issue is the consciousness that we each are allowed to experience. In the end, Christian realism is that reality created and blessed by God.4 Nothing more can be said, except perhaps, a thank you.
1 Polkinghorne, One World, 8.
2 Arthur Peacocke, From DNA to Dean, 200-201.
3 Polkinghorne, One World, 81.
4 Sonderegger, “The Character of Christian Realism,” 453.
Comments