Steve Petermann wrote:
>
> George wrote:
> > 3) My qualification that it is _independent_ natural theology - i.e.,
> with no
> > appeal to revelation - which is dangerous is important. The ID argument
> would be quite
> > different if they were to state up front that their belief in intelligent
> design is
> > based on acceptance of biblical witness to God's purpose for creation &
> that they are
> > then seeking to understand the working out of that purpose by scientific
> investigation.
> > That would not change the scientific status of ID claims. It would,
> however, require
> > IDers to face theological issues they now avoid, such as whether a God who
> acts as they
> > think in creation is really what the biblical picture of God points to.
>
> Could you say more why you think that a natural theology with no appeal to
> revelation is dangerous. One could say the scientifically understanding the
> universe is revelatory in itself. After all if God created the universe
> then one would expect to be able to make some kinds of inferences from the
> examining the handiwork. I can see how an independent natural theology
> *just* based on science might be open to error but that could also be said
> of biblical or other revelatory resources. The argument could just as well
> be said that an independent biblical theology is dangerous. Seems to me
> that no matter where a revelation is sought, there is a strong element of
> risk.
Independent natural theology is dangerous for the reasons Paul sets out
in Romans 1. Sinners (which we all are, even as Christians) consistently use our reason
& understanding of the world to imagine the kinds of God we'd like to have. It isn't
just that natural theology can't by itself arrive at a God who dies on a cross but that
the theisms produced by natural theology are in serious conflict with the idea of a
crucified God, so that they build a defect into Christian theology from the start.
It is true that a theology based on revelation has to make use of reason &
experience of the world - philosophy, science, &c. But those disciplines must play a
ministerial rather than a magisterial role in theology.
Though there is a long tradition behind it, I think that speaking of God's
"revelation" in creation is unhelpful. It would be better to let "revelation" refer to
what has been called "special revelation" - or at least to say that "general revelation"
can be understood as such only in the light od "special revelation."
(It may be helpful to say that I'm influenced here by Luther, Barth & Torrance -
which isn't appeal to authority, but simply citations which may make clear where I'm
coming from.)
> > 4) It's unfortunate that almost everyone in this debate, proponents &
> opponents
> > of ID alike, are willing to do what theology they do in terms of "theism"
> with no
> > reference to distinctively Christian understandings of God, creation, or
> providence.
> > The best arguments for a kenotic (non-dabbling) understanding of divine
> action, e.g.,
> > are christological - the very idea of kenosis comes from Phil.2:5-11.
> Such a view has
> > to be evaluated with explicit reference to God's revelation in Christ.
> Whether or not
> > we dabble in our children's lives may make a useful illustration but can't
> be the basis
> > for our theology.
> <<<
>
> I think it will be up to the theologians(Christian and otherwise) to take
> the ID framework and evaluate its place in theological thought. I would
> hope the scientists will refrain doing to much outside their specialty. As
> has already been seen that can lead to a lot of emotion that clouds the
> scientific endeavor. I actually think that there are already some pretty
> strong positions by folks like Polkinghorne, Peacocke, Murphy and others
> that have already formulated quasi-theological/scientific proposals for
> God's actions in creation. If the ID movement gains any widespread
> credence in the scientific community, it will only bolster those positions.
> I guess I don't get your point about kenosis in this context. Are you
> saying that Christianity presents a strong "non-dabbling" religious system?
> You may be right about kenosis but the whole rest of the Bible is about
> God's "dabbling" in a big time way.
My own understanding of divine action, which places heavy emphasis on kenosis,
is set out in "The Theology of the Cross and God's Work in the World", _Zygon_ 33, 221,
1998. It also insists that God is active in everything that happens in the world - & I
would say that that, rather that God's "dabbling" is what Scripture testifies to in a
big time way. God limits divine action to what can be accomplished through natural
processes - at least in the vast majority of situations.
Yes, the question of miracles is important & shouldn't be rationalized away.
But for the ID discussion in connection with the origin of life it's important to
emphasize that Scripture gives no support to the idea that the origin of life cannot be
understood in terms of natural processes. Of course God is the creator & sustainer of
life, but God is the creator & sustainer of everything. & the 1st Genesis creation
account emphasizes the mediated character of God's creation of life from the elements of
the world. There is no dabbling there.
Shalom,
George
> Best Regards,
> Steve Petermann
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 22:32:09 EDT