Vernon:
Mark Noll mentions the 'Creationist' debate in only a minor way in his
"Scandal." Certainly not in a 'withering fashion.' That's not his style.
The word that sparks your RHETORIC is 'literal.' Noll and others have
commented of the influence of Scottish common sense philosophy in infusing
this word (rightly or wrongly) into discussions of how to read scripture.
The ways that Christians have read the word of God are diverse and
influenced by the culture of the day.
The anger that you feel toward other correspondents prevents many from
hearing your case - however valid it may be. Talk shows and listserv
discussions are a waste of time when fences are up and name calling begin.
I wish that someone would be willing to analyze the more serious debates
after 15 - 20 exchanges and summarize the points, so that casual observers
as well as participants could properly focus on the issues.
Peace
Jack Haas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
To: "Stephen Matheson" <matheson@helix.mgh.harvard.edu>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind & you
> Stephen:
>
> I do not have access to Mark Noll's "The Scandal of the Evangelical
> Mind", but gather from the tenor of your posting that it represents a
> withering attack on the YEC position. Whether that attack has any real
> substance, I very much doubt. You sum up the 'scandal' - 'syndrome',
> even - with the question "How is it that an individual believer is
> rendered credulous and intellectually impoverished, lacking
> self-critical instincts and unaware of compromises in his/her own
> intellectual integrity?"
>
> I suggest these negative attributes are not the exclusive province of
> YECism, but rather extend across the board. How is it that scientists
> can arbitrarily exclude the supernatural from their deliberations (or
> water it down, as the case may be!) and yet pretend they are the sole
> purveyors and guardians of Truth? How is it that the proofs I provide of
> scriptural integrity* generally give rise to a severe attack of
> cognitive dissonance**? May I suggest that while this self-imposed
> barrier to the acceptance of the solid evidences of direct divine action
> in upholding the literal truth of the Genesis record is allowed to
> remain, no one is in a position to cast any stones at the intellectual
> integrity of another.
>
> It is clear to me that until the full complement of biblical data that
> is available to us has been properly examined, assessed and assimilated,
> we shall all remain 'intellectually impoverished' - our words in this
> debate, 'as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal'!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Vernon
>
> Vernon Jenkins MSc
> [musician, mining engineer, and formerly Senior Lecturer in Maths and
> Computing, the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan)]
>
> http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
> http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
>
>
> *For example, http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/page_10.htm
>
> ** In its acute form, a tangible legacy of the Fall; man's first line of
> defence in his brushes with Truth. An excellent introduction to the
> phenomemon is provided at http://www.jencom.com/2001
>
>
>
> Stephen Matheson wrote:
> >
> > Several months ago, I read Mark Noll's "The Scandal of the Evangelical
> > Mind", and it had a profound impact on my thinking and attitudes. As a
> > result, I often think about the scandal, noting how it is revealed in so
> > many aspects of evangelical behavior and, of course, in all its glory in
> > "creation science". After reading Mr. Roy's posts (with a mixture of
> > fascination and despondency) detailing the latest remarkable absurdities
> > emanating from YECism, I have been reflecting on the meaning of the
> > scandal in the context of individual minds.
> >
> > If you haven't read the book (and you really should), the basic premise
is
> > that "there isn't much of an evangelical mind", as a result of a sad
> > deterioration of intellectual engagement over two centuries of
evangelical
> > history. It is only a slight oversimplification to say that Noll
> > attributes the whole disaster to the loss of self-criticism in the
> > analysis and incorporation of ideas. In any case, Noll painstakingly
> > details the evolution (heh) of the scandal in its historical context,
and
> > his analysis is compelling in that frame of reference. In other words,
I
> > think it's clear how evangelicalism as a whole has arrived at its
current
> > state.
> >
> > But what isn't clear to me is this: how does the scandal operate in an
> > individual? How is it that an individual believer is rendered credulous
> > and intellectually impoverished, lacking self-critical instincts and
> > unaware of compromises in his/her own intellectual integrity? (I hope
> > it's clear how YECism in general, and the recent proposals on this list
in
> > particular, have sparked my interest in this question.) To be frank, I
> > see myself as still emerging from a comparatively mild case of the
> > syndrome, and I'm genuinely curious how this happens so systematically.
> > (No, I'm not discounting personal responsibility.)
> > It seems to significantly predate the obvious decline of American
> > educational quality, so that's not a good theory. My current working
> > hypothesis is that the loss of self-critical restraint made possible the
> > assimilation of some self-sustaining axioms into the dominating
worldviews
> > (read theologies), and that these axioms are self-sustaining at least in
> > part because they inactivate self-criticism, perhaps by replacing it
with
> > something else. The whole thing works as a feedback loop that is
> > self-sustaining and extremely well insulated. (I'm interested in
cellular
> > and developmental biology and in signal transduction in particular. Can
> > you tell?) The key is that it has to work *on individual minds* just as
> > well as it works on a cultural level, because IMO the cultural
insulation
> > is simply not strong enough to keep out competing ideas.
> >
> > In other words, I'm proposing that the syndrome is not merely a cultural
> > phenomenon, i.e. a bunch of bad habits reinforced by imitation or peer
> > pressure. Rather, it operates on the level of individual minds, acting
to
> > squelch self-critical intellectual restraint, perhaps taking the form of
a
> > specific set of axioms that affect self-criticism in a feedback loop.
An
> > interesting metaphor is HIV infection, with the invading agent taking
out
> > the defense mechanism.
> >
> > Does anyone else wonder about this? Am I making any sense?
> >
> > Steve Matheson
> > matheson@helix.mgh.harvard.edu
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 20 2000 - 10:16:49 EDT