Jump to content

Talk:A Scientific Theology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Upgrade of this article

[edit]

Given the rating of this page (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Assessment#Quality_scale) and the concerns regarding NPOV (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) and advertising (or, more correctly, WikiSPAM: Wikipedia:Spam) a major revamp seems appropriate.

I note that much of the content is a simple cut and paste of publisher's material (from Amazon?) and am therefore going to; (1) rewrite some content to overcome any blatant NPOV and advertising issues which exist; and (2) re-format any remaining publisher's material to make it clear that is IS publisher's description and not neutral content.

I have put up an "in progress" banner which I would like to remain until I can complete the major changes and the page is ready for re-release (so to speak).

The two major additions I'd like to make to the article are (1) an overview of critical review of McGrath's proposal together with some of McGrath's responses; and (2) brief descriptions (no more than a couple of lines) of the chapter contents (should fit nicely under the existing chapter outline).

Of course, I'd appreciate comment on the changes I'm making - but in the absence of any discussion, I'll remove the NPOV and advertising banners when it seems appropriate to do so. I can't imagine this would be too controversial given the lack of heated debate on the article!!!

Note that there are a few minor formatting issues with respect to references and etc which I will clean up in the near future.

Muzhogg (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the major issues with the lead have been resolved, and the material from publishers sources have been culled, I intend to remove the "advert" and "introrewrite" tags in the next few days. In addition, there have been no substantial claims of POV issues on the piece so I will also remove the "pov" tag (the reason for original POV tag wasn't clarified in any case). I know the article standard is poor, but I don't think these are any longer issues of concern. Any substantial objections? -- Muzhogg (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are now sections on the general concept of "scientific theology" and on the McGrath's specific approach to "scientific theology" I intend removing the "Missing Information" tag in the near future unless there are any substantial objections. -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant review & response

[edit]

Could somebody tell me why two of the only three sources cited for this article are for a review of a different book by McGrath and his response? If we have nothing to say about this book, other than Snyder's fulsome conclusion (which tells us nothing about the contents of the book, other than that he really really liked it), then perhaps we should not have an article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The McKenzie/McGrath dialogue is a critical review of McGrath's methodology as expounded in several of McGrath's works including A Scientific Theology. Given that A Scientific Theology is a work of method (as clearly stated in the first paragraph of the article) then critical appraisal of McGrath's methodology is relevant. Further both McKenzie and McGrath make reference to A Scientific Theology throughout the articles in question. Please note that the article is taged as in the middle of a major revamping - so whilst your constructive comments are appreciated, your suggestion that the article should be deleted is premature. Suggest you read cited articles before offering uniformed opinion on relevance in future. Muzhogg (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Discussion of "McGrath's [general] methodology", as opposed to this specific book belongs in Alister McGrath, not here. For one thing, the claim that the methodology discussed in the review is the same as the one employed in this book is WP:OR. For another, the fact that this methodology is discussed in relation to a specific book would appear to indicate that it is that book that is notable for the methodology rather than this one.
  2. My point was that vague praise + lengthy repetition of the contents pages + quotes from the book & its dustcovers does not make for an encyclopaedic article. If I am seriously thinking that the article should be deleted, you will see a {{notability}} or similar placed at the top of it. My impression is that the book is most probably notable, but that the article fails to demonstrate this by presenting substantial third-party coverage of the topic (which is this book, not "McGrath's methodology").
  3. "Suggest you read cited articles before offering uniformed opinion on relevance in future." Suggest you demonstrate a relevance that is not (i) tenuous & (ii) based upon WP:OR, before you start throwing around advice.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, it's not as though the material in the articles actually discusses the contents of McKenzie's criticisms (even if relevance could be established), it merely makes bare mention of their existence, and that of McGrath's reply. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that there is a major need for disambiguation here. McGrath considers A Scientific Theology to be an ongoing project of which The Foundations of Dialogue in Science and Religion is a part (see A Scientifc Theology 1:xvii as well as McGrath's remarks on The Foundation in the PSCF article cited). So how one addresses relevance is going to depend very heavily on whether the article is about the book(s) or about the project. Clearly the two are not unrelated. I would submit that the primary problem we have is that the McKenzie/McGrath articles are primarily related to the project whilst only the McGrath article is strongly relevant to the trilogy. And in the absence of disambiguation, resolution may be difficult to say the least. I suggest the incorporation of a brief remark on this point - discussions about relevant to be set aside until that is done. Apologies, by the way, for the unnecessary jibe re uniformed comment - that was uncalled for and your rebuke is warranted. Muzhogg (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article needs to be reparameterised with a lead stating something like:

A Scientific Theology is both a 3-volume work by Alister McGrath on the relationship between Christian theology and the natural sciences, and the "running title" of McGrath's ongoing project on this subject, of which this work is a major part.[1] The work is preceded in the project by Foundations of the Dialogue Between the Physical Sciences and Theology, and is summarised in The Science of God.

The lead should probably therafter be followed by the following sections:

  • 'The project' -- which should delineate the extent of McGrath's project, his reasons for undertaking it, as well as provide explanations of McGrath's thesis as to the "relationship between Christian theology and the natural sciences", his views on systematic theology, what he considers to be a "theological method", etc.
  • Foundations of the Dialogue Between the Physical Sciences and Theology
  • A Scientific Theology (the work itself)

In all cases, an effort needs to be made to make maximum use of third party sources, and to avoid getting bogged down in bibliographic detail. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like! But a few comments of varying importance;

  1. McKenzie's article engages with McGrath's themes and is not a review of the book per se - so the title of McKenzie's article does not match the book title; The Foundations of Dialogue in Science and Religion. In addition, there were two other major books written as part of the lead up to the trilogy - The Genesis of Doctrine (1990) and a biography of Scottish theologian Thomas Torrance. I think if one is going to be mentioned then all three should be.
  2. To implement the above, I propose the single section for Foundations could be renamed Prologomena (or equivalent) and consist of its own brief lead explaning the relation of the three books to the project/trilogy followed by three brief paragraphs - about four lines per at the most - giving a brief precis of each book and its relevance to the project as a whole. Given the works would be clearly identified in this section, there would be no need for a specific mention of the titles in the article lead.
  3. I've noted your comments on "theological method" and the more I think about it, the less certain I am that the issue should be dealt with in this article. It's standard practice in academic theology for an author to begin by laying out the philosophical and methodological assumptions of his/her approach. Consequently, I'm wondering if it wouldn't actually be better to have a new section in Systematic Theology on theological method? Indeed, the subject could merit its own article at some point in the future (it's a major area of study in its own right). This would enable a great deal of general discussion to be omitted from this article and placed somewhere more relevant, leaving only a few brief remarks that relate to the trilogy specifically. Thoughts?
  4. We've been speaking of the project as a dialogue between Christian theology and the natural sciences but it's probably important to note that McGrath includes "using philosophy and history as dialogue partners" in his description of the project (A Scientific Theology 1:xi). I would suggest that mention of history and philosophy be included in the lead. It would, of course, then have to be explicated in article body.
  5. I'd like to give Scientific Theology the project a little less emphasis so would shy away from writing that A Scientific Theology is the title of both the books and the project - it makes the project seem rather too official. I'd also like to mention the systematic theology which McGrath has stated will be the continuation of the project.
  6. With all the above in mind, I offer the following lead as a modification of your above;

A Scientific Theology is a 3-volume work by Alister McGrath exploring the relationship between Christian theology and the natural sciences, using philosophy and history as dialogue partners. Scientific Theology is also the "running title" of the project which gave rise to the trilogy.[2] During the project McGrath prepared three books [Titles here?] in which he developed themes critical to his Scientific Theology. The trilogy is summarised in The Science of God. McGrath has voiced his intent to prepare a systematic theology according to the principles laid down in the trilogy.

Locating third party resources shouldn't be too difficult (I already have a few in my files - just haven't written them up yet). Muzhogg (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  1. "dialogue partners" (unless you're talking about inviting a couple of friends over for a chat) is quite horrendous jargon.
  2. As "philosophy and history" aren't the central topic of McGrath's project, they should not be mentioned in the first paragraph at all (and its questionable whether they should be included in the lead at all).
  3. McGrath didn't prepare "three books" for the project -- he prepared five -- and your proposal only mentions four of them.
  4. As Foundations of the Dialogue Between the Physical Sciences and Theology is part of this project, it really needs a section explicitly discussing it, at least briefly.
  5. 'Prologomena' is an awful name for an article-section.
  6. If you're going to employ terms of art that are not part of the non-specialised lexicon, you really need to either (i) explain/define them or (ii) wikilink to an article/section where an explanation of them is easy to find (i.e. the article/section should primarily be about the concept being linked for).

You really need to tone down the verbosity and obscurantism -- this is an encyclopaedia article, not a philosophy of religion essay. Please read WP:BETTER. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Thanks for pulling me up on the jargon and verbosity - will try to do better!
  2. The count of three major preliminary works is correct and non-negotiable. See [Scientific Theology] or pp.8-9 of The Science of God.
  3. Foundations of the Dialogue Between the Physical Sciences and Theology is not part of the project, it is a critical treatment of some of the themes. Could be included under reviews and criticism but McKenzie's work doesn't merit its own section in the main article.

Muzhogg (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  1. If "Foundations of the Dialogue Between the Physical Sciences and Theology is not part of the project", then why did McGrath call McKenzie's review of that book "his assessment of my project"?[3]
    • That this is "a review of the book per se" is demonstrated by McKenzie's introductory statement: "I will give an extended review of a recent book by Alister E. McGrath entitled The Foundations of Dialogue in Science and Religion."[4]
  2. McGrath further indicates that The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundations of Doctrinal Criticism and Thomas F. Torrance: An Intellectual Biography (in addition to Foundations of the Dialogue Between the Physical Sciences and Theology) are "landmarks" in his development of his "scientific theology" (and thus presumably also part of the 'scientific theology' project).[5]

Finally, I would point out that if the 3 books=the project, then there's really no need to differentiate between them (and no point in attempting to do so) -- so the current lead can be left intact. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, right....So now your going to argue that every author who engages with the project should have their work mentioned in the lead, but the three major works that McGrath himself cites should be ommitted. I think I've been arguing that Genesis and the Torrance biography are two of the three significant works. Tell you what, I don't have time to waste giving you an education in McGrath's thought. I've been studying it for the last five years, I know what I'm talking about, and I can spend my time better elsewhere. You write the article. I'm out of here. But at least I know why Wikipedia is a laughing stock when it comes to reliable content. Muzhogg (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Er, wrong -- I did not "argue that every author who engages with the project should have their work mentioned in the lead"
  2. Er, wrong -- I did not suggest that "the three major works that McGrath himself cites should be ommitted."
  3. When you talked about "three books" straight after talking about a "trilogy" (in the suggested lead), it is not surprising that a reader would assume that they were one and the same, rather than track it back to six numbered points previously (which point did not itself make clear that it was talking about a set of "three books").

You may know what you're talking about, but you appear to be singularly incapable of imparting that knowledge in a concise and comprehensible manner. You appear to be more interested in showing off your erudition than in informing the reader. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's a succint comment for somebody who spends most of their time posting banal criticisms of other people's efforts: WP:BITE - I was new here, what's your excuse? Muzhogg (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(i) You have been on Wikipedia 6 months longer than I have, and so are hardly a "newcomer" (ii) I would assert that in the above thread I am no more "biting" than "bitten". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely sorry for my attitude/remarks and have realized that my approach has been unnecessarily defensive from the outset. Have come to realize your editorial comment is to the point by necessity. I have not experienced this before and am on a steep learning curve. Was very confused by your apparent turn about on relevance of McKenzie. It would be helpful to me you could note that the title of McGrath's volume The Foundations of Dialogue in Science and Religion does not match that of McKenzie's article Foundations of the Dialogue Between the Physical Sciences and Theology. Will continue to add to the article with an emphasis on succinct encyclopedic comment and look for your further editorial advice. Muzhogg (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McKenzie on A Scientific Theology

[edit]

(4) the first two volumes of a trilogy on the subject. …

In concluding, I note that the same criticisms cannot be made of McGrath’s latest book, the first volume of A Scientific Theology, which is dedicated to Torrance. It contains a devastating critique of trying to relate science to the illdefined concept of religion (pp. 50–60) and it does discuss natural theology from a biblical perspective (pp. 257–64). …

To his credit, in his new book McGrath does discuss verse 18 and Barth’s views (and their biblical basis) in more detail. …

18To balance this criticism, I should point out that some of this work is briefly mentioned in McGrath, A Scientific Theology, Volume 1: Nature, 112. Sokal’s hoax is discussed in McGrath, A Scientific Theology, Volume 2: Reality.

Only one explicit (and two oblique) mentions in the article text, plus another mention in footnotes. Hardly enough to claim that McKenzie "engage[s] with 'this book'". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. But I'd counter by noting that the McGrath piece draws heavily on A Scientific Theology in order to make response to McKenzie. So I would offer the suggestion that relevance is established by the McGrath piece, whilst context for the McGrath piece is established by the McKenzie piece. It's the two pieces together that are relevant. I will reword the reference to McKenzie in order to put the emphasis on the McGrath piece and to draw out why the McGrath piece is relevant to the article itself. Muzhogg (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bah! I hate it when I'm wrong. Having reworded the reference in question, I now agree that relevance under the present sub-heading is an issue. Would it be acceptable to relocate it under "external links"? Muzhogg (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drees reviews

[edit]

As the Drees reviews aren't currently cited for their contents, I've moved them into the EL section for the time being (per WP:MOSLINKS). That is not to say that they can't or shouldn't be cited for new additions to the article (as they appear to be WP:RS, they can & should, at which point they can be moved into inline citations). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

User:WLU amended the lead; "exploring parallels between the working assumptions and methods of the natural sciences and Christian theology" to "examines the connections between the scientific method and Christian theology." On the positive side I think the link to scientific method is valuable. On the negative side I think this change;

  1. Does not adequately account for McGrath's emphasis on the working assumptions of the physical sciences.
  2. Suggests he is concerned with the content of Christian theology rather than with consideration of "the working assumptions and methods of Christian theology".

As a result I have reverted the change (with some alteration) in order to emphasise the parallel which McGrath is making. i.e. not a parallel between "scientific method" and "Christian theology", but a parallel between "The working assumptions and methods of Christian theology" and "the working assumptions and methods of the natural sciences". Whilst I have omitted the link to "scientific method" this is only because I am uncertain how to include without destroying what I see as a conceptual parallel which is fundamental to McGrath's entire project. Muzhogg (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand this, given McGrath's emphasis on methodology rather than contents, it runs into problems given that a major pillar of the scientific method is methodological naturalism. Also there's the fact that the scientific method is explicitly provisional, and I would suspect that a provisional theology might be problematic. I think some thought needs to be put into explaining how McGrath deals with the apparently inimical aspects of the scientific method, if an explicit link to it is made. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are very pertinent concerns. I'd note that they are actually quite central to McGrath's treatment. He certainly deals with questions of naturalism and provisionality in science and Christian theology. As a result these issues should recieve adequate treatment as a matter of course. Perhaps best just to leave this issue on the back-burner for now? Muzhogg (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews and Criticisms

[edit]

To prevent any conflict over the matter of Reviews and Criticism, may I suggest that we list relevant references here. The content can be summarised and added to the article as time and interest permits? Would this please all editors? I have begun a list below and would welcome any additional contributions. -- Muzhogg (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have divided this section of the article into three sections, one per volume. As the majority of reviews relate to only one volume, this seems to be the logical way to structure the section. -- Muzhogg (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews for consideration

[edit]

Please supplement the following list as appropriate;

  • Abrahamson, Karen K. "Review Article: Alister McGrath's A Scientific Theology." Andrews University Seminary Studies 44 (2006): 341-55.
  • Colyer, Elmer,
    • “Alister E. McGrath, a Scientific Theology, Volume 1 - Nature.” Pro Ecclesia 12 (2003): 226-31;
    • “Alister E. McGrath, a Scientific Theology, Volume 2 - Reality.” Pro Ecclesia 12 (2003): 492-7;
    • “Alister E. McGrath, a Scientific Theology, Volume 3 - Theory.” Pro Ecclesia 13 (2004): 244-40.
  • Drees, Willem B., of Leiden University, The Netherlands, reviewed all three volumes of A Scientific Theology in Ars Disputandi: The Online Journal for Philosophy of Religion:
  • Maclean, Iain S., Review of A Scientific Theology, Vol. 2: Reality by Alister E. McGrath. A Scientific Theology, Vol. 3: Theory by Alister E. McGrath. Journal of the American Academy of Religion. Vol. 73, No. 2. Jun., 2005. pp. 556-560.
  • Miller, James B., Review of A Scientific Theology: Volume 1 (Nature) Alister E. McGrath. Isis. Vol. 96, No. 1. Mar., 2005. pp. 157-158.
  • Rassmussen, Larry L., Review of A Scientific Theology. Vol. 1, Nature by Alister E. McGrath. The Journal of Religion. Vol. 83, No. 2. Apr., 2003. pp. 292-293. (done 4 June 09)
  • Wilson, Jonathan R., Review of A Scientific Theology, Vol. 1: Nature by Alister E. McGrath. Journal of the American Academy of Religion. Vol. 71, No. 4. Dec., 2003. pp. 955-958.
  • Wynn, Mark, Review of A Scientific Theology. Vol. 2, Reality by Alister McGrath. The Journal of Religion. Vol. 84, No. 2. Apr., 2004. pp. 300-302.
  • NDA, Review of A Scientific Theology. Vol. 1, Nature by Alister E. McGrath. Zygon. Vol. 39, No. 4. pp. 957-978.

-- Muzhogg (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on A Scientific Theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Scientific_Theology&oldid=1197187453"