I would like to read your Zygon article once is published, please let me know
how to get it. I guess the other title of yours is a book, I would appreciate
more info on it.
I understand precisely our idolatrous tendencies, our constant, nagging, and
draining sinful nature. I agree with your view of Romans 1. But, I also
think that the "suppressing" of the truth is exactly what the naturalists are
doing. By their nature they suppress the truth and they know it. I believe
this suppressing is a conscious act. They will keep this line of action (as
we would) forever unless the Holy Spirit changes their nature anew.
What the IDers are doing may be view as a Natural Theology, I don't believe it
is. IMO, I think they are pressing the issue that the Universe and Life are
too complex, too beautiful, too grand to have come into existence by purely
naturalistic means --> No God Nowhere. I think they want the naturalists to
admit the possibility of the supernatural. ID may evolve in more ways than
one - Behe's position will not be the only one I predict. Obviously, all
movements have pros and cons. But in view of the naturalistic-atheistic
priests we have at the end of the XX century, and the powerful effect they
have on society, I believe the type of debate initiated by the IDers and other
participants is very welcome. Bringing back Galileo and other similar cases
as remainders of what could happen would be just fine if science would have
stopped advancing since then. But it is precisely scientific advances the
ones providing data that beg for an re-evalution of our phylosophy of science
and worldview.
Salutis
Eduardo.
George Murphy wrote:
>
> Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
> >
> > George Murphy wrote:
> > > "Mediated creation" is not my fundamental
> > > theological starting point. That is the theology of the cross, God
> > > present & active under the appearance of divine absence - as on
> > > Golgotha. In creation, this means that natural processes through which
> > > God works are, at the same time, the "masks of God" as Luther says.
> >
> > Very interesting, is there a book or something on this topic?
>
> The statement of Luther is in Vol.14 of _Luther's Works_, p.114.
> Bonhoeffer's comments are in _Letters and Papers from Prison_ - of
> course not a systematic treatment. A good but difficult (lots of
> engagement with German philosophers) work is Juengel's _God as the
> Mystery of the World_. My own _The Trademark of God_ deals with
> creation & evolution in this spirit, & an article of mine, "The Theology
> of the Cross and God's Work in the World", will be published in _Zygon_
> this summer.
> ................................................
>
> > > The _theological_ problem with the claims of Behe _et al_ & the
> > > whole ID movement is that they insist that certain natural phenomena
> > > _compel_ us - if we're intellectually honest - to acknowledge God at
> > > work, & that independently of faith in Christ.
> >
> > I see your point, but you can not refute them absolutely. The fact that you
> > don't like it does not mean is not true or possible (Psalm 19 and Ro 1 are
> > pretty good support for their approach, we went over this before).
> It isn't that I don't _like_ natural theology. As a sinful
> human being, of course I do! We all do. We all want to think that we
> can "find" God if we look hard enough & think clearly enough. & trying
> to do that on our own, we create idols - which is precisely what Romans
> 1 is talking about. As Christians made aware of our persistent tendency
> to idolatry, we should be suspicious of the natural tendency to
> construct independent natural theologies & find legitimation for them in
> the Bible.
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@imperium.net
> http://www.imperium.net/~gmurphy