From: Ted Davis (TDavis@messiah.edu)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 19:32:59 EST
Sondra is not a "blithering idiot," indeed her comments about certain views
aired on the ASA listserve only underscore the dilemma faced by many
Christians who want to listen to modern science and modern biblical
scholarship (I think these apparently separate fields of inquiry raise
equally disconcerting questions. It isn't an accident that conservative
Protestants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the scientists and
the biblical scholars as the two faces of Satan.
The most fundamental problem, in my view, is the large gap that separates a
typical ASA member from a typical American Protestant. This has been noted
often by ASAers ourselves, and by the secular historian James Gilbert in the
chapter on the early ASA in his book, Redeeming Culture. It's dogged our
identity and our effectiveness since the beginning, and I doubt it will go
away any time soon.
The gap has several relevant features, let me mention just a few. First,
many ASAers have genuine professional knowledge of one or more sciences;
others have genuine professional knowledge of the Bible or important related
aspects of the ancient world. Most non-ASAers have neither. So, there is a
fundamental knowledge gap that is not easily crossed, even though we have to
keep trying.
Second, many ASAers understand and appreciated subtle distinctions, often
involving philosophy/metaphysics or theology, which are not appreciated by
non-ASAers. In some cases, those folks are simply unable to appreciate such
distinctions by limits of their ability to reason (I'm not trying to be
"elitist" or insulting here, I'm simply stating what I believe to be true;
those folks are as important to God as everyone else, and ought to be
respected as such). In other cases, folks can learn to make such
distinctions themselves, but won't always come to the same conclusions for
lots of possible reasons I won't enumerate, including a basic difference in
beliefs about God, nature, and human knowledge. A third group is capable of
doing this type of thinking, but refuses to do it. Either they're too lazy,
too hostile (they think that reason and faith are contradictory poles), or
barking up the wrong tree (that is, they fail to see the importance of doing
really hard thinking about these kinds of questions, whereas they don't
hesitate to think really hard about lots of other questions).
Probably the "hostility" group is the hardest to deal with. Many YECs (I
am convinced) fit into this category. They're usually hostile b/c they have
a very simple notion of truth and a very simple notion of literary genre
when applied to the Bible. They can accept propositional truth and simple
truth (such as the fact that this message ended up in their mailbox), but
often can't accept really big truths that can't be adequately expressed as
propositions or easily demonstrated from simple truths. They tend to
believe things like this: if you can show that the creation story in Genesis
One can't be historically/scientifically true, then the whole Bible is a
pack of lies, or at least fables. They have a very serious point, but they
often dismiss very serious answers directed at this very point.
This is why I tell my students, as we begin to consider very interesting
but speculative notions about science and faith, the following little word
of advice: "Never go anywhere you can't take your faith with you."
I try to show students what some of the paths are, but I'd rather see them
own a genuine faith on a simpler path, than lose their faith on a harder
one. I mean that completely, it's not a gratuitious disclaimer.
Early in the process, I tried to get Jim to read some really good and
thoughtful stuff about science and faith. I don't know if he did, nor can I
say whether it would have been helpful if he had. But my level of
frustration went up pretty quickly, b/c it was pretty clear that he didn't
want to engage these important questions on the same plane that many people
on this list do engage them.
So he yelped about it.
And lost his faith.
At least for the time being... If you're ready to reopen that conversation
somewhere down the line, Jim, please let us know. In the meantime, I do
wish you well.
ted davis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 21 2002 - 23:38:19 EST