Re: have we forgotten who the enemy is?

I think you're mistaken about the prevailing paradigm in the
sciences. Among the most elite scientists and some of the most well
known popularizers, yes, many or perhaps most are philosophical
materialists (i.e., only matter, no spiritual realm). But I just
heard today from a sociologist of religion that more than 60% of
those with postgraduate degrees believe there is a God. My personal
observations from the several years I have been involved in
scientific research, I'd say there are a significant number of
scientists who believe in God. In fact, in my time at a larger
research university, my limited observations are that humanities and
social science faculty are overall more hostile to Christianity than
science faculty. And as a geologist, I'd like to echo the sentiments
expressed by others that YECs (especially) and IDers (somewhat
because it won't renounce YEC so it often appears as creationism in
disguise) make Christians look stupid and give non-believing
scientists a good excuse to not even consider Christianity.

I'd say Christianity is much more threatened by nominal Christianity
and by general greed (acquisitive materialism rather than
philosophical materialism) then by atheistic secularism.

-Joel

At 2:10 PM -0500 on 2/18/05, jack syme wrote:
>Wasnt Anthony Flew converted to theism from ID arguments? Not from
>the ID folks, but from teleological arguments. He was not converted
>to theism through the Gospel. IMO that is something, it is a step
>in the right direction for him.
>
>I guess my entire thread here is based on an underlying assumption
>that I thought was obvious but maybe isnt shared by others on this
>list.
>
>I assume that there is a bias in our society, scientific or
>otherwise, against anything spiritual whether it be YEC or any other
>form of belief. I think that the prevailing paradigm in the
>sciences is that there is no god whatsoever, there is no spiritual
>realm, there is only matter and engergy. And I mean this not in the
>sense that this is the only way to do science, but in the sense that
>this is considered the way things are. This ultimately comes from
>the pride of Man, and his desire to be the supreme being of the
>universe. There is a bias against us as Christians, whether we are
>YEC or not. It is that battle that I am most concerned with.
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
>To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 12:59 PM
>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
Received on Fri Feb 18 21:19:18 2005