Hi David, Happy 4th to you all. I gotta go to work today. Strangely, they
don't celebrate the 4th over here.
I wrote:
>> The consequences of God delegating the discovery of theological
>> truth to
>> mankind are such that the entire Hebrew Scriptures might simply be a
>> dead
>> end in mankind's search.
>>
You replied:
>There is a simple answer to your question. God gave us minds and senses
>with which to examine the natural world. Every step in science is checked
>against that world. If I tell you that, doubling about every 150 years
>from Ussher's date of the Flood to 1970, one gets a population of about
>3.5 billion, you can check the figures. If that means that, at the death
>of Abraham, the population would then be 91, you can verify that also.
>How much sense that makes as a justification of YEC is a matter of
>elementary thought. God does not have to explain it to us. There is,
>however, no such simple logical and physical test for ethics and all the
>other matters with which religion deals. Note the vast range of claims
>made historically and upheld by theologians and philosophers today. Note
>also how few of them are subject to rebuttal except by accepting an
>alternative viewpoint. If God is good, then he had to reveal matters of
>faith and conduct to his creatures progressively.
>>
It is this wide range of claims in philosophy which made me decide that
philosophy wasn't for me. There is no grounding of truth, just assumptions
followed by logical consistency. Now, you are correct that science has the
advantage of having a judge for the divergent claims--observation and no
such mechanism applies to theology. And that is in large part my point. The
only way we have to judge the theological claims which come into our mind,
or come to us in a vision is by the means of science. Look at all the
divergent, mutually exclusive religious claims today. All claim to be the
word of some god. How does one go about the job of determining which
theology is the true theology? We simply can't decide that the religous
claims of our parents are correct because all the adherents of the other
religions have parents who told them that their religion was the correct
one. Simply put, without some attachment to scientific observation, the
veracity of religious claims are as adrift from verification as are the
claims of Locke Berkely, Spinoza, Ficte, etc. And that turns theology into
a game of what claims do I like the best rather than what claims are true!
In short, if God did what you say, he left us with no way to determine the
truth.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
>Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 12:46 PM
>To: glenn.morton@btinternet.com
>Cc: PASAlist@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: sciDocument.rtf
>
>
>
>
>Howdy, Glenn.
>
>On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 19:24:09 -0700 "Glenn Morton"
><glenn.morton@btinternet.com> writes:
>>
>> Hi Paul, You wrote:
>> >I think there is a perfectly reasonable and biblical alternative:
>> >
>> >God has delegated the discovery of natural truth to mankind (Gen
>> >1:26-28) and consequently does not reveal those kinds of truths.
>> >I see no claims anywhere in Scripture to the effect that God
>> >intends to reveal truths of the natural world. I see throughout
>> >the Bible, including in the life and teaching of Jesus,
>> >accommodation to the science of the times.
>>
>> I know your view quite well having read your excellently argued
>> book.
>> However, one question I don't recall you ever being able to answer,
>> at least
>> to my satisfaction, is this: If God delegated the discovery of
>> natural truth
>> to man, how can you be sure He didn't also delegate the discovery
>> of
>> theological truth to man? Upon what basis, theological, scriptural
>> or
>> natural, do you reject the delegation of theological discovery? And
>> if God
>> did delegate only scientific discovery, where does God tell us this?
>> You
>> never tell your readers exactly what the basis for your belief that
>> God
>> delegated the search for natural truth is. Is it a theological
>> revelation?
>> Where is it in the Scripture? Did God tell you that He delegated
>> this task?
>> I simply don't see that you have much here other than an assumption,
>> made by
>> you in order to avoid the nasty science problems. How do you KNOW
>> your
>> assumption of God's delegation is actually TRUE?
>>
>> >
>> >It is not logical to say that if God accommodated his revelation
>> >of spiritual truths to ancient science, then he is making the
>> >science up from the whole cloth of falsity. He is not making
>> >anything up.
>>
>> OK, so man makes it up and calls it an inspired word of God. What
>> epistemological basis do we have for saying that all descriptions of
>> the
>> natural world in the Bible are not true and only the theological
>> extracts
>> are true? Where does it say this in any theological document--other
>> than
>> your book and preferably within Scripture? And indeed, if
>> descriptions of
>> the natural world are delegated, how do you separate the description
>> of the
>> resurrected body from that delegation? When does this delegation
>> end
>> temporally? If people can be wrong about descriptions of the
>> creation of the
>> world, floating axe-heads and other obviously false things, were
>> the
>> apostles still allowed freedom in their description and discovery of
>> the
>> natural world when they mistakenly thought they saw Jesus walk
>> through a
>> wall into a locked room?
>>
>What empirical evidence can you produce in connection with a resurrection
>body? And why would the disciples be mistaken at the sudden appearance of
>Jesus? I can certainly describe the appearances and disappearances when a
>magician is on stage, even though I am convinced that there is trickery
>involved. I note further that there is solid evidence that gospels and
>epistles were circulating during the lifetimes of those who personally
>knew Jesus.
>
>On the basis of the scriptures, I have accepted Christ Jesus as my
>savior. I claim that I am experiencing the consequences which the
>scripture says are the result of that faith. I cannot prove that this is
>not more than a psychological effect, that there is a spiritual element
>which transcends everything that can be examined scientifically. I live
>in hope that I shall one day see what is promised. Meanwhile, I do not
>have a test for the ipsimma verba of scripture. I am confident that the
>New Testament is accurate, though I have evidence of three words that
>were added to the original version of Mark. I also understand that all
>the most ancient versions of the Old Testament do not necessarily agree
>with the Massoretic text. I also know that hares and hyraxes do not chew
>the cud at the text says. Does this mean that erroneous beliefs were
>incorporated into scripture, or that satanic forces made copyists insert
>the errors? Or were these creatures ruminants three millennia ago and
>have evolved rapidly to their present state--or were miraculously
>changed? I'll take the standard Reformed view that the scriptures are the
>standard for faith and practice, revealed progressively, and not worry
>that much about how much tradition and propaganda crept in. Bunnies and
>bats have never figured in my ethics.
Nor have bunnies and bats figured in my ethics. Nor do I think it
reasonable for people to expect the ancient hebrews to have Linnaean
taxonomy. But I do expect that the history they speak of has some
relationship to reality.
>
>> The problem I have with your view Paul, is that you make an
>> assumption which
>> may be correct, may be wrong. But that assumption is so key to
>> your
>> position, that it would really be nicer if one could find it stated
>> in
>> Scripture rather than only in your books.
>>
>> glenn
>>
>Agreed. It would also be beneficial to your position if some verse
>specified the canonical books and said that they were totally free from
>all error, including interpretation.;-)
>Dave
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 04 2002 - 01:19:57 EDT