Walt, I am glad that you at least agree with me that this false dichotomy,
where one must choose science OR the Bible, is wrong. And I agree with you
that it is held by many.
So, the key question is what do we as Christians *do* with that. I see two
basic approaches:
1) You suggested "engage in dialog at that level." I would submit that this
is a no-win proposition. That paradigm is so atheism-friendly that any
discussion conducted within it is likely to do more harm than good, just as a
brackish spring will not bring forth fresh water. There are really just two
ways to go if one accepts the either/or position:
1A) Argue against the science, with the implicit (and sometimes explicit)
message that the truth of Christianity depends on your being right about
science being wrong. This is the approach of Henry Morris, Phil Johnson, and
many others, and it erects a tremendous barrier to the Gospel among the
scientifically literate (in addition to setting up Christians for a fall if
they are ever convinced by the scientific evidence).
1B) Dismiss the Bible as a bunch of irrelevant nonsense. This is the
approach of secularists like Richard Dawkins, and to a lesser extent of some
people at the fringes of Christianity like Bishop Spong.
2) Alternatively, one can *reject* the either/or paradigm, and struggle to
get these many people to see the wrongness of the false dichotomy. That's a
slow and frustrating battle. But unless this foundational level of the
problem is addressed, I don't see any hope for making significant progress at
all. Sure, we need to learn how to better dialog with people who are stuck
in that viewpoint. But we shouldn't do so in a way that validates their
either/or view; instead we will serve them best if we can draw them away from
the harmful view that Genesis must be read as a science text.
Allan
In a message dated 3/11/02 3:37:42 PM Mountain Standard Time,
wallyshoes@mindspring.com writes:
> Allan, you are completely correct the way you define things.
>
> However, many people (both naturalist scientists and non-scientific
> Christians) believe it EXACTLY the way I stated. I personally know many
> of them!!! If we do not recognize that, then all discussion is
> fruitless. Call them "phony" if you want but that gets nowhere. They may
> be "wrong" viewpoints, but they are in fact the viewpoints which many
> people hold to be true. If we refuse to engage the dialog at that level,
> then we are just drinking our own bath water. May taste good to us ;-)
>
> Walt
>
>
> SteamDoc@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated Mon, 11 Mar 2002 2:48:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> writes:
> >
> > >
> > > If you believe that our current NATURALIST science tells the complete
> > > truth then you must absolutely reject the first chapter of Genesis as
> > > being partially flawed at best.
> > >
> > > If, on the other hand, you believe that the Bible is infallible, then
> > > you have reject the claims of science.
> > >
> >
> > This is a great example of the sort of false dichotomy that causes so
> many problems.
> >
> > The first statement is only correct if by "complete truth" you mean a
> thorough *metaphysical* explanation (which of course science can't provide,
> though abusers of science like Dawkins might claim otherwise), as opposed
> to just the science. If you believe the science, that only makes Genesis 1
> flawed if you think Genesis 1 is intended to be a scientific text.
> >
> > Likewise with the second statement. There is only a problem if one
> insists that Biblical "infallibility" applies not only to the traditional
> "matters of faith and practice" but also to scientific questions outside
> the purpose of Scripture. Of course some people do that. Such people were
> in trouble long before Darwin, since if read that way the Bible teaches
> that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, that the Sun revolves
> around the Earth, and that the waters above the Earth are held back by a
> solid dome.
> >
> > These phony either/or frameworks do nothing but harm our prospects for
> fruitful discussion.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 11 2002 - 21:52:29 EST