Queen of the Sciences

That is, theology. It used to be that theologians were sought after to answer questions of how’s and why’s and whozit’s and whatzit’s...but our society has bought into the notion that theology is not a real knowledge. Unlike mathematics and the hard sciences, theology is merely a belief system. However, this ‘two-sphere’ approach to life is fallacious. It misses the fact that one’s religious system pervades their view of the hard sciences. Francis Beckwith writes why theology and politics must convene to have a full-orbed view of the world. It is not imposition of beliefs. Rather, it is exposition of truth. Check this out: “While campaigning for the US presidency in 2004, Senator Kerry said that he believes that human life begins at conception, though he claimed that this belief should not be reflected in our laws. If the Senator had said something similar about another issue, such as spousal abuse, we would think his comments incoherent. So, let us imagine that Senator Kerry had said he believes that spousal abuse is wrong, but that this belief is his own private, personal one, and for that reason, it would be wrong for him to extend that belief through the law to others who may be members of religious traditions that encourage, or at least permit, spousal abuse. If Senator Kerry had made that claim, we would know immediately that he does not grasp what it means to say that an act is wrong. Why then do many of our fellow citizens not see the same incoherency when political leaders like Senator Kerry apply this reasoning to the question of abortion?” (italics original; Francis Beckwith, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, Vol 20, 462). And another: “Precisely because these jurists are theologically serious, they are unlikely to use the power of their office to engage in the sort of judicial usurpation of legislative, state, and executive powers that has marked the record of their liberal counterparts.” (Ibid., 467) In other words, the legislation that is being passed down by more liberal “interpreters“ of the law are actually religious/philosophical beliefs about the world. What is ironic is that religion is supposed to be absent from a judge’s ruling - ”religious” being that which answers “What is man?” - but the philosophical presuppositions seek to answer that very question in the name of “fact.” After all, doesn’t the person who approves abortion have an answer handy when asked, “What is man?” Sure they do. Part of their answer is: “It isn’t an embryo.” Of particular interest is page 469-470. This is a thought-demanding article and I am thankful to my friend, Weyland, who passed it along to me. Get the full article here. May the queen be re-throned; as God’s revelation is our only hope for understanding the twisted world in which we live.