Bryan R. Cross wrote:
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> > Since you are very concerned that people not be misinterpreted, please
> note that
> >I did not say that anyone was claiming that scientific evidence could provide
> any of the
> >distinctive features of Christian faith. It has been thought by many people
> that
> >experience of the world & reason could provide a basis for Christian faith or
> >"preparation for the gospel" by demonstrating the existence of God &c apart from
>
> >revelation. (E.g., Vatican I.) & that has been a problem in at least two ways.
>
> > 1) The successes of scientific explanation led (one can already see the
> process
> >at work in Newton & it comes to flower in somebody like Lessing) to the idea
> that a
> >natural knowledge of God is all that is needed - i.e., to the belief that the
> >distinctive features of Christian faith (Incarnation, Trinity, &c) were
> superfluous.
> > 2) Even when that hasn't happened, ideas of philosophical theism
> functioning as
> >natural theology, such as the immutability & perfect simplicity of God, have
> infected
> >Christian theology and obscured central Christian beliefs in the meaning of the
> cross &
> >the Trinity.
>
> Well, I don't share your theological position with respect to natural theology
> and general revelation. Just because some people were led by the success of
> science to downplay the importance of special revelation, that does not mean that
> natural theology implies or entails such a move. General revelation can inform
> one's interpretation of special revelation, and vice versa.
This last sentence suggests that the supposed 2 types of revelation are on the
same level. They aren't. "Special revelation" is how we know about God and God's
relationship with the world. It does not (contra "creation science" &c) give us
definitive scientific understanding of how the world qua world functions. OTOH natural
science does tell us how the world functions but by itself tells us nothing about God or
the world's relationship with God.
They need not, however, remain completely separate. Scientific understanding of
the world, _when viewed in the context of revelation & by the light of revelation_, can
help us better to understand God's relationship with, & activity in, the world. But
there is not symmetry between the 2 types. & in fact it would be less conducive to the
types of error I've described if we would simply drop terms like "general revelation",
"primitive revelation" &c.
> Likewise, since I
> affirm simplicity and immutability, I wouldn't use the term 'infected', but
> that's another matter.
We need not get into this here, but I pointed out the problem to make it clear
that the damage which can be done by natural theology was not simply a result of
Enlightenment philosophy. It is a very widespread tendency which seems to be inherent
in any reliance on _independent_ (& I continue to stress this) natural theology.
>
> > It is true that abuse does not nullify _proper_ use, but the problem is
> that
> >natural theologies, & design arguments as a part of some such theologies, have a
> clear
> >tendency to get out of their proper bounds & do a great deal of damage. & there
> is a
> >simple reason for that - the tendency of sinful human beings to make up their
> own gods
> >in place of the real God. It's what Paul is talking about in Romans 1.
>
> The same problem can arise with special revelation as well. The two have to be
> held together to avoid the sort of problems you mention. General revelation apart
> from special revelation can become a pagan religion; but special revelation apart
> from general revelation can also become a parade of subjectivity, and the
> practical results can be the same.
I don't think This claim that over-reliance on "SR" can produce the same results
as exclusive use of "GR" can be sustained. A very narrow focus on the Bible, especially
if one claims the right to interpret it without regard for the beliefs of the Christian
community & tradition, can produce a very constricted religion & disregard for the
world, in & some cases (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses) lead to denial of fundamental
Christian beliefs like the Trinity. But such an emphasis, inadequate though it may be,
does not in general lead to abandonment of basic Christianity. OTOH, an exclusive
emphasis on GR inevitably leads to denial - or at least ignoring - of those beliefs
because you just can't get Incarnation, Cross, Trinity, & Atonement from it.
> > Those who present ID arguments, especially when part of a "wedge" directed
>
> >against naturalism &c, have some responsibility to make clear the limitations of
> the
> >argument so that they are not misused. While they sometimes make formal
> qualifications
> >to the argument of the type you state, I don't hear IDers going out of their way
> to
> >disabuse theologically unsophisticated people of the idea that their claims
> provide some
> >independent proof of God.
>
> I agree. This is a legitimate point.
>
> >> That is exactly what ID is not.
> >> Take SETI for example. Do the SETI researchers base their
> >> belief that ID is detectable on revelation?? Obviously not. Since an atheist
> can believe
> >> that intelligent design is detectable in nature and detected in nature, (i.e.
> an atheist can
> >> be an ID proponent) ID is not dependent upon revelation. Is there a
> theological problem with
> >> the SETI researchers' belief that intelligent design is detectable in nature?
> If not, then
> >> what are your *theological* objections to the ID thesis that intelligent
> design is
> >> detectable in nature and detected in nature? It appears that you conflate ID
> proper with the
> >> use some ID proponents and Christian apologists make of it.
>
> > Your supposed parallel between SETI & ID means nothing: The fact that
> people in
> >research program A don't operate with a certain assumption doesn't mean that
> those
> >engaged in program B don't. The ID movement, as it exists in the real world,
> has a
> >clear religious agenda. There may be a couple of atheist IDers but the
> prominent ones,
> >& the ones who get anyone to pay attention to the movement, are theists & are
> explicit
> >about their agenda of opposing naturalism, their belief that God acts in the
> world, &c.
> > I can't get into the minds of ID proponents & so can't say to what extent
> their
> >beliefs which stem from religious upbringings, scripture, &c have influenced
> their
> >beliefs in ID. But it is notoriously difficult for most of us, with the best
> will in
> >the world, to keep deeply held beliefs from influencing the way we evaluate
> arguments.
> > I recognize the theoretical distinction between "ID proper" and "the use
> some ID
> >proponents and Christian apologists make of it" but make no apologies for
> "conflating"
> >them because that's the way ID appears in the real world & the way it may
> influence the
> >people I preach to & teach.
>
> If the critics of ID continue unabashedly to conflate ID proper with the
> apologetic misuse which is made of it, its legitimate scientific claims (such as
> those seen in SETI work) will be lost in the cries of protest over its apologetic
> misuse. If those who present ID arguments "have some responsibility to make clear
> the limitations of the argument so that they are not misused", then critics of ID
> have some responsibility to distinguish carefully between ID proper and its
> apologetical misuse. Just because all that you and your congregation experience
> is apologetic misuse, that doesn't justify conflating such misuse with ID proper.
The problem is hardly one of a single congregation but of a widespread influence
throughout the church, & especially the more conservative parts of it. & again, yes, I
recognize the theoretical distinction, & no, it's not as important as you want to make
it. Not all "conflation" is illegitimate, & if one is interested in how the ID movement
is functioning in the real world one has to look at the way it actually is being used.
If ID is supposed to be a purely scientific movement then the appropriate venue
for publication of its research is refereed scientific journals. It would be
interesting to know how many ID papers have been submitted to such journals and how many
have been published there.
> Moreover, not all use of ID by apologists is misuse. Think of all the recent
> archaeological finds that have provided substantiation to biblical accounts. They
> don't prove that the Bible is true, but they do provide some support to the
> Bible's claims. Likewise, if the ID main thesis turns out to be true, this will,
> undoubtedly, provide some support to theism. (Even though theism is fully
> compatible with the falsity of the basic ID thesis, and atheism is fully
> compatible with the truth of the basic ID thesis.)
The last 1/2 of your final sentence is a standard ID fig leaf. What is the
"designer" if not something that can be called God? The putative Intelligent Designer
can't be identified with any intelligent lifeform on the same ontological level as
humanity, for that would merely shift the question of the origin of intelligent life
back another step.
Shalom,
George
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 05 2000 - 08:01:33 EDT