RE: have we forgotten who the enemy is?

If materialism means that only the physical exists, then why add the
word atheistic to it. Richard Dawkins, if he thought for a moment, will
have to confront the fact that his daily actions are not governed by his
science. On what basis does he make daily decisions other than decisions
in his scientific work? Dawkins can take comfort in his pride and
superiority by deriding Christians who do not know science yet speak
about it.

One ought not to bring religious faith when discussing unadulterated
science. However, some scientific efforts are heavy laden with
philosophical baggage, which has to be exposed and sorted out. Atheists
presuppose that they are not perfect and so ought to be allowed all sort
of leeway. Of course, Christians are considered perfect and so any
evidence of imperfection in thought or action is held against the faith.
However, what do our actions have to do with the truth that is in Jesus
the Christ? Certainly, our shortcomings reflect on our fallen nature and
not on the perfection that is in Christ.

I do not think it is wise to talk about enemy. There is either truth or
error and all should search the truth. People have to know what they are
assuming or supposing in order for there to be a fruitful dialogue that
can lead to understanding. Unless assumptions are stated or known
explicitly, one will be talking or arguing and getting nowhere.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Terry M. Gray
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 1:00 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: have we forgotten who the enemy is?

I'm not even sure I would say that atheistic materialism is the
"enemy". Isn't atheistic materialism just the religion of the
unconverted modern intellectual? Are we really surprised that people
are atheistic materialists if they're not believers?

Why would anyone be convinced of theism apart from conversion? The
only way Richard Dawkins is going to give up his atheism is if he is
converted to Jesus Christ--it's not going to be because some YEC or
ID argument persuades him of the inadequacy of Darwinism (although
admittedly, sometimes it does seem works that way).

Atheistic materialists are just acting consistently with their
religion in their resistance to all things theistic (whether it's
creation, design, life after death, or whatever). If this is where
our culture is, then our primary job is to preach the gospel and
demonstrate its fruits in our churches and in our lives. We can and
should continue to develop Christian theist perspectives on
cosmology, evolution, AND other sciences, but it's bizarre, in my
mind, for us to expect atheistic materialists to be sympathetic to
our religious interpretations of these things.

Perhaps this is another argument for "methodological
naturalism"--i.e. the ability to cooperate and communicate with those
who don't share our religious perspectives. The public nature of
science and science education should cause us to find common ground
where possible even with the "enemy".

This is also why this debate is fundamentally an intra nos debate. TE
vs. YEC vs. ID etc. is a debate among Christians or theists. While I
disagree strongly with YEC, I'm not sure I can say it's "silly". YEC
rises out of prior commitments to a view of Genesis that override
everything. It's a mistaken view of Genesis, in my opinion, but I
must say that if you have that view of Genesis, you are being
entirely consistent to come up with some of the fantastical things
that YEC's do in their science. Likewise, I disagree with ID at many
points, but the I share commitments of ID, that God created,
designed, and upholds the bacterial flagella (and everything else for
that matter),.

Atheists have all sorts of things to ridicule in Christianity besides
YEC theology/science: the resurrection of Jesus, the second coming of
Jesus, believing that God hears and does anything in response to
prayer, that story in the OT about Elijah and the prophets of Baal,
inspiration of scripture--the list could go on and on.

You may infer from this post that there is no value in apologetics.
For those of you who know about the apologetics debate, I will admit
that I am an apologetical presuppositionalist and not an
evidentialist. The work of apologetics is, in large part, our giving
an answer--but it's always in the context of "our" -- we're coming at
these questions from a faith perspective. I'm not sure that "our"
arguments are all that convincing apart from our fundamental faith
perspective. Thus, back to conversion...and here it is the "gospel
that is the power of God to the salvation of everyone who believes".
It's not convincing arguments about bacterial flagella or causing
people to doubt the legitimacy of radiometric dating, it's the
proclamation of the cross of Christ and God's mercy to sinners
thereby displayed. The power of God for salvation accompanies that
preaching! Yes--supernaturally! It penetrates the stoney hearts of
unbelievers by the work of the Holy Spirit. And by that means are men
and women converted. (Talk about something to ridicule! Who could
believe such a thing?!?)

So what's the enemy? It's unbelief, rejection of the gospel. And the
preaching of the gospel is God's power against that enemy.

TG

>Michael Roberts wrote:
>
>"When YECs cease from distortion and name-calling I might begin to
listen to
>them. I am afraid they are a bigger obstacle to the spreading of the
Gospel
>than Richard Dawkins"
>
>and
>
>"Glenn and George have both explained why YEC is as much the enemy of
the
>Gospel as atheistic materialism. "
>
>
>These comments are an example of why I started this thread in the
>first place. YEC is a problem, but a problem greater than
>atheistic materialism? I hardly think so. What philosophy is
>rampant in our culture? It certainly isnt YEC it is materialism. At
>least creationists get part of it right, the most important part
>too. Glenn and George pointed out examples where YEC silliness is a
>barrier to bringing the Gospel to people, generally people that are
>already caught in the trap of atheistic materialism. Within the
>Church YEC can certainly be responsible for making someone question
>their faith, but it ultimately is atheistic materialism that
>captures them if they give in to skepticism. The ultimate enemy is
>materialism, not YEC.
>
>And I see ID treated with virtually the same disdain on this list as
>YEC. I hardly think you can accuse ID of being the same barrier to
>spreading the gospel as YEC.

-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801