Re: Romans 1:20-23 and "evidence for God"

William Dembski uses Romans 1:20-23 to label "naturalism" as idolatry
(_Intelligent Design: the Bridge between Science & Theology_, p. 226):
"Creation, especially a fallen creation, can at best reflect God's glory.
Idolatory, on the other hand, contends that creation fully comprehends God's
glory. Idolatry turns the creation into the ultimate reality. We've seen
this before. It is called naturalism. No doubt, contemporary scientific
naturalism is a lot more sophisticated than pagan fertility cults, but the
difference is superficial. Naturalism is idolatry by another name."

Of course, one has to unpack the meanings that Dembski attaches to such
words as "naturalism." And then there is the question of analysing the
rhetorical slight of hand that that connects the sentences in the paragraph,
and that lead to his final sentence. But it at least is clear. And he also
tells us here that he doesn't believe that the "intelligent Designer" is the
god of stoicism, though we knew that all along.

Bob Schneider

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Loren Haarsma" <lhaarsma@calvin.edu>; "_American Sci Affil"
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: Romans 1:20-23 and "evidence for God"

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loren Haarsma" <lhaarsma@calvin.edu>
> To: "_American Sci Affil" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:44 PM
> Subject: Romans 1:20-23 and "evidence for God"
>
>
>>
>>
>> "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his
>> eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being
>> understood
>> from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although
>> they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him,
>> but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
>> Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the
>> glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and
>> birds and animals and reptiles." (Romans 1:20-23, NIV)
>>
>>
>> I've read several arguments, based on Romans 1:20, that we ought to
>> find strong evidence (scientific, rational evidence) for God's existence
>> in nature. These arguments are typically aimed against the theory of
>> biological evolution. But if we look at verse 20 in its context
>> (especially verse 23), and consider the apostle Paul's historical and
>> cultural context, I think the passage has a different application to
>> modern times.
>>
>> The cultural context: Paul was not primarily concerned with
>> naturalistic atheism. While there may have been a few Greek philosophers
>> who believed in naturalistic atheism, the predominant beliefs around
>> Paul's time were pantheistic idolatry (verse 23).
>>
>> One definition of idolatry is: taking some element of creation and
>> worshiping (basing one's life and hopes) around it rather than the
>> Creator. The gods of pantheism were personifications of parts of
>> creation
>> (the sun, the moon, the sea, animals) or aspects of the natural order
>> (death, fertility, the seasons). I think that Paul is saying here that
>> it
>> is a fundamental flaw in human beings that, apart from God's grace, we
>> tend to make idols out of parts of creation rather than worshiping the
>> creator.
>>
>> In light of this cultural context, how does this passage apply to
>> modern day naturalistic atheism? Well, there is one sense in which
>> naturalistic atheism turns a portion of creation into an idol. In this
>> case it is the regularity of natural laws, the regularity of natural
>> cause-and-effect, which has become an idol. Rather than attributing this
>> regularity to the Creator's faithful governance -- and giving God the
>> glory -- some people base their whole world-views, and invest their hopes
>> for the future, in the regularity of natural laws and our abilities to
>> understand them. In this sense, naturalistic atheism has something
>> fundamentally in common with ancient polytheism. I think this is an
>> appropriate modern application of Romans 1:20-23.
>>
>> What does this imply for biological evolution? Scientifically:
>> nothing. Religiously: everything. When people study biological history,
>> they are not wrong to see regular patterns of natural cause and effect,
>> for those patterns are there. The religious mistake of naturalistic
>> atheists is not that they fail to see scientific evidence for God's
>> miraculous interventions in natural laws. Rather, their religious
>> mistake
>> is to take one aspect of the created world -- the regular pattern of
>> natural cause and effect -- and make an idol out of it, rather than
>> praising the Creator for it.
>>
>> Note: I'm not saying that this passage "proves" evolutionary creation.
>> I'm only saying that this passage, interpreted in its historical context,
>> gives no preference for progressive creation over evolutionary creation.
>
> The passage has a broader application as well. The Intelligent Designer
> whose existence is supposedly inferred
> from observation of the world can easily be an idol.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Tue Jul 19 23:04:37 2005