The nature of existence, which science seeks to investigate, is dynamic as novel discoveries are constantly presented. To explain such a dynamic existence, science itself needs to be dynamic. Methodological differentiation is one way in which science expresses dynamism. Such differentiation led to the theological and the natural sciences, and conflicting views regarding the nature of existence: the theological worldview versus the natural worldview. This study is a comparison of the conflicting worldviews of the theological and cosmological (natural worldview) theories of the beginning of existence. The study compares them in an attempt to redress the conflict and encourage dialogue between the two methods for a better representation of existence. The study exposes the limits of the theological and the natural worldviews. It proposes a relationship of dialogue between them so that they transcend their individual limits and are able to grow. Dialogue involves the interchange of ideas to broaden perspectives, which leads to growth. A relationship of dialogue emphasises similarities in presuppositions, methodology and content, and exploits these to attain a greater degree of certitude. Theology and natural science can be viewed analogically as two sides of the same coin, two aspects to one reality, that can collaborate, albeit independently, to reveal a broader view of reality. They can converse through dialogue, exchange ideas and share views, even though they remain methodologically exclusive, independent worldviews. Finally, dialogue involves a transformation of reason in that it expects theologians and natural scientists to change the way they view reality. If we were to transform our reasoning into something more complete, our worldview should represent a more complete representation of existence. This means that the theologian and the scientist can, occasionally, go beyond their scope and method and push their knowledge towards progress through dialogue. This makes “transformed reason” the method of dialogue, which redresses the conflict between theology and natural science and encourages interchange between them. / Inhlobo yobukhona, isayense edinga ukuphenyisisa ngakho, kuyashintshashintsha njengokutholwayo okusha okuhlala njalo kwethulwa. Ukuchaza lokhu kushintshashintsha okukhona, isayense ngokwayo idinga ukushintshashintsha ngokuhambisana nesimo. Umehluko wezindlela zokwenza ngenye yendlela lapho isayense ekhombisa khona ukushintshashintsha ngokuhambisana nesimo. Lo mehluko uholele abaholi bezenkolo kanye nabesayense yemvelo, kanye nemibono engqubuzanayo maqondana nenhlobo yobukhona; umbono ngezenkolo uma kuqhathaniswa nombono ngezemvelo. Lolu cwaningo luqhathanisa umbono ongqubuzanayo ngomhlaba ngenkolo kanye nekhosmoloji (indlela yokubuka izinto yemvelo), amathiyori okuqala kobukhona. Ucwaningo luqhathanisa lezi zinto ngemizamo yokubhekana nokungqubuzana kanye nokukhuthaza idayalogu phakathi kwezindlela ezimbili ukuze kube nokumeleka kahle kobukhona. Lolu cwaningo luveza izihibe ezikhona kwindlela yokubuka izinto yezenkolo kanye nezemvelo. Luphakamisa ubudlelwane bedayalogu phakathi kwazo, ukuze kweqiwe imingcele yazo zombili ngayinye kanye nokukhula. Idayalogu ibandakanya ukushintshana ngemibono ukunabisa indlela yokubuka izinto, okuholela ekukhuleni. Ubudlelwane bedayalogu bugcizelela ukufana kwezilinganiso (presuppositions), izindlela zokwenza kanye nengqikithi, kanye nokucwaninga lezi zinto ukufinyelela ezingeni elikhulu lokuqiniseka ngendlela izinto eziyikho. Imfundo ngenkolo kanye nesayense yemvelo kungabonwa njengokulandelanayo kwezinhlangothi ezimbili kwikhoyini eyodwa, izinto ezimbili kwimvelo eyodwa, kungahambisana,ngisho noma okunye kuzimele ngokwehlukile kokunye, kuveza umbono obanzi walokho isimo esiyikho. Kungakhulumisana ngedayalogu, ukushintshana ngemibono kanye nokwabelana ngemibono, ngisho noma izindlela zakho zokwenza zehlukile, imibono ngomhlaba kwehlujkile nokuzimela. Okokugcina, idayalogu ibandakanya ushintsho lwembangela ngoba kulindele ukuthi abezenkolo kanye nososayense bashintshe izindlela ababona ngaso lokho isimo esiyikho. Uma bekufanele siguqule indlela esibona ngayo iziimbangela ukuya kwinto ethile ephelele, indlela esibona ngayo umhlaba nayo kumele imele umfanekiso ophelele kakhulu ngobukhona. Lokhu kusho ukuthi abaholi bezenkolo kanye nososayense, bangathi ngezinye izikhathi, babuke ngaphezulu kwendlela abobona ngayo kanye nezindlela zokwenza, kanye nokududula ulwazi lwabo ukuthi luthuthuke ngedayalogu. Lokhu kwenza "imbangela eguqukile" ibe yindlela yokwenza idayalogu, okubhekana nokungqubuzana phakathi kwezenkolo kanye nesayense yemvelo kanye nokukhuthaza ukuxhumana phakathi kwazo. / Sebopeho sa boteng, seo mahlale a batlang ho se batlisisa, se ba matla ha ditshibollo tse ntjha di nehelanwa kgafetsa. Ho hlalosa boteng bo matla jwalo, mahlale ka boona a hloka ho ba matla. Phapang ya mekgwa ke tsela e nngwe eo mahlale a hlalosang matla ka yona. Phapang e jwalo e lebisitse ho thuto ya bodumedi le mahlale a tlhaho, le maikutlo a hanyetsanang mabapi le sebopeho sa boteng: dipono tsa lefatshe tsa thuto ya bodumedi kgahlanong le pono e akaretsang ya tlhaho. Phuputso ena ke papiso ya maikutlo a akaretsang a lwantshanang a dikgopolo tsa thuto ya bodumedi le dikgopolo tsa tshimoloho le ntlafatso ya bokahohle (pono e akaretsang ya tlhaho) tsa qaleho ya boteng. Phuputso ena e di bapisa ho leka ho lokisa kgohlano le ho kgothaletsa puisano dipakeng tsa mekgwa e mmedi bakeng sa boemedi bo betere ba boteng. Phuputso ena e pepesa ditekanyetso tsa maikutlo a akaretsang a thuto ya bodumedi le tlhaho. E kgothaletsa kamano ya puisano dipakeng tsa tsona e le hore di fete ditekanyetso tsa tsona ka bomong mme di tsebe ho hola. Puisano e kenyeletsa phapanyetsano ya mehopolo ho hodisa maikutlo, e leng se lebisang ho kgolo. Kamano ya puisano e totobatsa ho tshwana dikgakanyong, mokgweng le ho dikateng, mme e sebedisa tsena ho fihlella tekanyetso e kgolo ya ho nepahala. Thuto ya bodumedi le mahlale a tlhaho di ka tadingwa ka mokgwa o tshwanang e le mahlakore a mabedi a tjhelete e le nngwe ya tshepe, dikarolo tse pedi ho nnete e le nngwe, tse ka sebedisanang, leha di ikemetse, ho senola pono e pharalletseng ya nnete. Di ka sebedisana ka dipuisano, tsa fapanyetsana maikutlo le ho arolelana dipono, leha e le hore di dula e le dipono tse akaretsang tse ikemetseng, tse ikgethang mokgweng. Qetellong, puisano e kenyeletsa phetoho ya mabaka ka hore e lebelletse ditsebi tsa thuto ya bodumedi le boramahlale ba tlhaho ho fetola tsela eo ba tadimang nnete ka yona. Haeba re ne re ka fetola monahano wa rona hore e be ntho e nngwe e felletseng, pono ya rona e akaretsang e lokela ho emela setshwantsho se felletseng sa boteng. Sena se bolela hore setsebi sa thuto ya bodumedi le ramahlale, ka dinako tse ding, ba ka feta maemo le mokgwa wa bona mme ba sutumeletsa tsebo ya bona tswelopeleng ka puisano. Sena se etsa "lebaka le fetotsweng" mokgwa wa puisano, o rarollang kgohlano dipakeng tsa thuto ya bodumedi le mahlale a tlhaho le ho kgothaletsa phapanyetsano dipakeng tsa tsona. / Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology / M.A. (Philosophy)

Thesis (MA)--Stellenbosch University, 2001. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The analysis of the system of speculative thought of Plato and Zoroaster, as found in Plato's Timaeus and Zoroaster's Gathas, seeks to compare a well-known philosophy, that of Plato, to a lesser known and often misunderstood system of speculative thought within a religion, namely Zoroastrianism. The purpose of such a comparison is to show that the speculative thought found in religion is often comparable to philosophy, as is the case in the doctrines postulated in the Gathas. It serves to illuminate the philosophy within a lesser known religion (Zoroastrianism) by comparing it to a well-known philosophy (that of Plato), and in doing so, to cast new light on both. The comparison of Plato and Zoroaster has been proposed and sometimes executed by other scholars as well. The main problem in these other comparisons, thus far, has been the fact that no historical contact or definite doctrinal influence of Zoroaster on Plato has been or is likely to be established. Though Plato might well have been familiar with Zoroastrian doctrines, this cannot be satisfactorily proven. This study does not depend on historical contact or doctrinal influence (though the possibility of the latter has been discussed), but compares the two doctrines independent of historical factors and is based solely on the striking similarities between these two systems of thought. This study has focussed on some of the basic concepts within the two doctrines, such as creation, the soul, and dualism. In this study I have emphasised the philosophical aspect of Zoroastrianism, though it is classified as a religion, because I believe that much of what has been classified as religion also incorporates speculative thought that can be analysed separately, and as a system of speculative thought it is comparable to other traditions of speculative thought, such as Greek philosophy. This comparison therefore seeks to counteract some of the assumptions about religions, and how they are studied, by focusing on the philosophical basis underlying the doctrines in the Zoroastrian religion. Another aspect to the comparison is a focus on the similarities of doctrine originating in two cultures previously held to be vastly different, namely Persian and Greek. There has previously been a tendency to consider the cultures of the classical and the ancient Near Eastern world as separate and completely distinct from each other, and in doing so, ignoring important historical contact. Although the historical interaction between these two areas has received increased attention, comparative investigations have emphasised the differences between the cultures of these regions, although similarities do abound and the comparison of analogous aspects of the various cultures could prove valuable to the study of the ancient world. Recognition of the larger context within which the various cultures of the ancient world operated can only add to the understanding of the ancient world, and pave the way for reassessing the traditions and world-views of various cultures. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die analise van die spekulatiewe denkstelsels van Plato en Zoroaster, soos uitgelê in Plato se Timaeus en Zoroaster se Gathas, beoog om 'n bekende filosofie te vergelyk met 'n minder bekende en dikwels wangeïnterpreteerde spekulatiewe denkstelsel binne 'n religie, naamlik Zoroastrisme. Die doel van so 'n vergelyking is om te demonstreer dat die spekulatiewe denkstelsel wat binne 'n religie gevind kan word dikwels vergelykbaar is met 'n filosofie, soos die geval is met die leerstellings/denkstelsels wat uitgelê word in die Gathas. Dit dien om die filosofiese binne 'n relatief onbekende religie (Zoroastrisme) uit te lig deur dit te vergelyk met 'n bekende filosofie (dié van Plato), en in die proses is dit moontlik dat daar nuwe lig gewerp kan word op albei. Die vergelyking tussen Plato en Zoroaster is al deur verskeie academici voorgestel en soms uitgevoer. Die hoofprobleem in al die vorige vergelykings is dat daar tot dusver by Zoroaster geen historiese kontak met of invloed op die leerstellings van Plato vasgestel kon word nie. Alhoewel Plato heel moontlik bekend kon gewees het met Zoroaster se leerstellings, kan dit nie bo alle twyfel bewys word nie. Hierdie studie voorveronderstel geen historiese kontak tussen of beïnvloeding deur die leerstellings van Zoroaster en Plato nie (hoewel die moontlikheid van laasgenoemde bespreek word). Dit is 'n vergelyking wat slegs gemotiveer is deur die treffende ooreenkomste tussen hierdie twee denkstelsels. My studie fokus op 'n aantal basiese konsepte binne die twee leerstellings, soos skepping, die siel, en dualisme. Ten spyte van die feit dat Zoroastrisme as 'n religie geklassifiseer word, word die filosofiese aspek van Zoroastrisme in hierdie studie beklemtoon, want ek glo dat baie sisteme wat as religieë geklassifiseer word spekulatiewe denke inkorporeer wat onafhanklik van die religie self as 'n spekulatiewe denkstelsel soos filosofie geanaliseer kan word, en verder ook vergelyk kan word met ander tradisies van spekulatiewe denkstelsels, soos die oud-Griekse filosofie. Hierdie vergelyking poog om die aannames oor religieë, insluitend aannames oor hoe religieë bestudeer moet word, teen te werk deur te fokus op die onderliggende filosofiese basis in die leerstellings van Zoroastrisme. 'n Ander aspek van die vergelyking is 'n fokus op die ooreenkomste tussen leerstellings wat hul oorsprong het in twee kulture (die Persiese en Griekse onderskeidelik) wat voorheen as heeltemal uiteenlopend en verskillend beskou is, en in die proses is die belangrike historiese kontak geïgnoreer. Alhoewel die historiese interaksie tussen die twee areas toenemend aandag geniet, word die kulturele verskille beklemtoon ten spyte van die feit dat daar veelvuldige ooreenkomste is en dat 'n vergelyking van ooreenkomste tussen verskeie kulture baie waardevol kan wees vir die studie van die antieke wêreld. 'n Waardering van die wyer konteks waarbinne die verskeie kulture van die antieke wêreld gefunksioneer het, kan net bydra tot 'n beter begrip van die antieke wêreld en die weg baan vir 'n herevaluering van die tradisies en wêreldbeskouings van die betrokke kulture.