Barth’s “dialectical” method involved a “No” with a “Yes” when he addressed any particular topic or theological doctrine. It is particularly evident in his approach to modern science.
One of the gifts that’s come to my pastoral ministry at Bidwell Presbyterian Church is neurorehabilitation psychologist Leonard Matheson. Len and I began by talking about a “biopsychosocial” approach to medicine. We also looked at the role of oxytocin and the hippocampus and connected all of it to scripture and faith.
This week, with team members spread across not only the country but now three continents, we thought now would be a good time to republish something (lightly edited) that our readers enjoyed and that also gets at the heart of our vision. If you’re a new subscriber, we hope you enjoy this for the first time. And for those of you who have been with us for a while, we hope you find something new in this piece.
Many spiritual atheist scientists talk about the limitations of science, which clarifies so much about the world but cannot explain the “human nature of being.”
Let’s pause, for moment, on that phrase, spiritual atheist scientists… “Spiritual” and “atheist” in the same sentence? It makes bringing science to church quite interesting, doesn’t it?