Re: Signs of Scientism

If historicity of the resurrection is central to being a Christian then we
run the risk of finding contradictions and other 'historical' evidence which
would lead us to doubt the historical veracity. I can quote some
'remarkable' books by those who have found fascinating evidence
contradicting the historicity of the resurrection of Christ.

Indeed, we do. Nevertheless, the historicity of the resurrection is central
to the faith. I'm pretty confident that the testimony of scripture, the
Apostolic witness, the church fathers, the major creeds, and the historic
doctrinal positions of all the major denominations back me up on this.

As a Christian you may hold that there is divine action behing every natural
process but how to distinguish between divine and non divine natural
processes is what is the real issue here.

If I was understanding Keith correctly, he would say that there is no such
thing as a "non-divine natural process." I would agree that this view
comports with the doctrine of God's sovereignty. Unless you don't believe
God is sovereign, I'm not sure how you come up with a "non-divine natural
process."

People have sought to see the Hand of God in so many natural processes, so
why do we have to insist on something supernatural, if as you seem to
suggest, natural processes may be the result of direct 'divine action". Or
in other words, we only are able to observe natural processes.

Scripture, the Apostolic witness, and the historic tradition of the Church
views Christ's resurrection, and other miracles recorded in scripture, as
things outside of natural processes. Adopting a robust theology of God,
there doesn't seem to be any reason to reject this historic understanding.
Moreover, there are affirmative reasons to adhere to the historic
understanding, including respect for scripture and preservation of a proper
theology of God. Higher criticism and "liberal" theology, of course, do
reject this understanding, partly becuase they have sought to constrain God
within the limits of human understanding and physical laws.

Mechanisms are very important to evolution as is the teleological nature of
evolution.

Not from what I've read. As to teleology of evolution, my understanding is
that there's a robust debate about whether "teleology" is even an
appropriate concept for evolution. As to mechanisms, my understanding is
that there is significant debate about mechanisms and that uncertainty about
mechanisms does not undermine the fact of evolution. Thus, though
mechanisms and teleology are interesting areas of debate within evolutionary
theory, evolutionary theorists, as I understand it, do not view the
resolution of those debates as essential to the fact of evolution.

Since the supernatural is fully unconstrained it can explain anything and
thus really nothing.

This is a presupposition about "the supernatural" that conflicts with
Christian theology. A Christian theology of God does not view God as "fully
unconstrained." God always acts in accordance with His nature, which is
fully loving, just, truthful, wise, knowing and good. Moreover, God has
created us in His image and desires for us to know Him. A careful Christian
epistemology, therefore, would not allow for "supernatural" events that
would destroy our ability to make reliable observations that lead us to
knowledge of the truth. Thus, we find that our faith is based in
substantial part on God's mighty acts in history -- creation, His
deliverance of Israel, the miracles of Jesus, the Resurrection, and others
-- that are properly called "supernatural." If "supernatural" acts have no
explanatory power at all, our scriptures, traditions and faith are nothing
but Marx's proverbial opiate.

On 1/17/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> To: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> Cc: Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu>; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:24:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Signs of Scientism
>
> Pim -- as to the adequacy of the tests folks like Demski and Behe have
> proposed for design, that's neither here nor there to me right now.
> Let's assume you're right and that they are inadequate. I've read
> Behe and Demski and see the strengths and weaknesses of their
> arguments, but I don't want to argue about that, as I'm not an "ID
> fundamentalist" and I'm sure all of you have been over those arguments
> until they've made you ill. I'm hoping to understand some broader
> questions and distinctions.
>
> Pim: I understand. Critics of ID have done quite an in depth analysis of
why ID's claims have to be rejected since they are scientifically vacuous.
>
>
> Re: the resurrection -- Merv -- thank you, that was where I was going
> next. The "meaning of Christ's resurrection," it seems to me, is not
> "more important" than the fact of the resurrection from any semblance
> of an orthodox Christian standpoint, whatever the denominational
> tradition. The fact of the resurrection is the central historical
> event of our faith; without it, there is no Christian faith. If we
> have to talk of any kind of meaningful demarcation between "Christian"
> and "not Christian," it seems to me that the historicity of Christ's
> resurrection is part of the central core of that border. And there
> is, indeed, substantial empirical evidence for the resurrection (I'm
> reading through N.T. Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God"
> just now, which is fascinating on the context of and evidence for the
> resurrection), even if the event cannot in some sense of the word be
> "proven."
>
> Pim: If historicity of the resurrection is central to being a Christian
then we run the risk of finding contradictions and other 'historical'
evidence which would lead us to doubt the historical veracity. I can quote
some 'remarkable' books by those who have found fascinating evidence
contradicting the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. The issue is
not circumstantial evidence, or contradicting 'witnesses' but rather then
meaning of the resurrection to our Christian faith.
>
> Keith: "Divine action cannot be detected by scientific test." I'm
> having trouble following you here. As I understood your position,
> nothing happens without Divine action. Evolution reflects God's
> direct, providential activity in creation, through the physical laws
> He has established for the universe. This concept of evolution being
> God's direct, providential activity avoids the "blind watchmaker"
> criticism of theistic evolution.
>
> However, if you want to avoid the "blind watchmaker," it seems to me
> that you also have to hold that "divine action" can be detected by
> scientific test, since any "natural" process we observe is the result
> of direct "divine action."
>
> Pim: But that is begging the question. As a Christian you may hold that
there is divine action behing every natural process but how to distinguish
between divine and non divine natural processes is what is the real issue
here.
>
> It also seems to me that, if we are going
> to affirm the historicity of the miracles recorded in scripture,
> including the central miracle of Christ's resurrection, we have to
> affirm that "supernatural" "divine action" can be detected by
> empirical observation.
>
> Pim: Why? People have sought to see the Hand of God in so many natural
processes, so why do we have to insist on something supernatural, if as you
seem to suggest, natural processes may be the result of direct 'divine
action". Or in other words, we only are able to observe natural processes.
>
> I would agree that "divine intention" isn't subject to empirical
> observation. We only know the "why" and the "where to" of the
> Resurrection because of scripture, and we only begin to understand it
> because of grace and the Holy Spirit. I'd also agree that the
> mechanisms of "supernatural" "divine action" -- the "how" questions --
> aren't subject to empirical observation (as Merv put it, we can't
> explain scientifically how God accomplished the resurrection). But
> teleology (why / where to) and mechanism (how), though they may be
> appropriate questions we ask of nature, aren't essential to calling a
> test scientific, as the science of evolution demonstrates.
>
> Pim: I do not understand your argument here. Mechanisms are very important
to evolution as is the teleological nature of evolution. Check out the work
by Ayala and Ruse to understand why evolution may appear to be teleological.
>
> Perhaps the problem is in my shift from "scientific tests" to
> "empirical observation." Even if we conclude that "empirical
> observation" isn't the same thing as "scientific tests," the waters
> still seem muddy to me. The kinds of "tests" we're discussing can't
> be only repeatable experiments, since that would elide large swathes
> of what we now call science. If we're talking about something like
> "falsifiability," many purported miracles meet that test, including
> probably Christ's bodily resurrection. (e.g., if Archeologists found
> a crypt with the bones of a crucified man dating to the first century,
> inscriptions identifying the man as Jesus, and a large cache of
> clearly authentic primary source documents penned by the disciples
> indicating that the disciples stole the body and fabricated the gospel
> accounts, we probably could justifiably call the gospel accounts of
> Christ's bodily resurrection falsified.)
>
> Pim: And ?How would this address the supernatural? Just because something
is falsifiable does not make it scientific. After all, one could very well
argue that the body was left behind to instill doubt in the believers who
had to accept on faith that Christ had been resurrected? Or what if the
crypt had been staged by Romans trying to cover up? And even if it falsified
the resurrection, this hardly falsifies a supernatural being. All it shows
is that our 'historical' records may be flawed.
>
> So, aren't we back then to the somewhat arbitrary question of
> demarcation between kinds of empirical observations that are
> "scientific" or "non-scientific"? (I hope this all doesn't sound
> argumentative. I do obviously come to the table with some existing
> views on all this, but they are provisional and I'm trying to learn.
> And you've all I'm sure been over this a thousand times before as
> well, but I appreciate your patience in discussing it with me.)
>
> Pim: The demarcation issues is mostly philosophical. Whether or not
something is science versus whether or not something is the truth can be
very different concepts if one allows the supernatural as an ''explanation".
Since the supernatural is fully unconstrained it can explain anything and
thus really nothing.
>
> On 1/17/06, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> > My comments were based on unadulterated science. If additional
hypotheses
> > are included, then all sorts of conclusions can be derived from the
data.
> >
> > Moorad
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Keith Miller
> > Sent: Mon 1/16/2006 11:10 PM
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: Signs of Scientism
> >
> >
> > > I beg you to tell me how physicists characterize the elementary
> > > particles they constantly talk about. Are they fools when they claim
> > > that their (physical) detectors have detected a photon, an electron,
> > > etc.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you are getting at. Of course our claims about the
> > nature of physical objects and forces are legitimately based on our
> > observations (direct or through instruments) of physical objects and
> > events. But, I would also contend that those physical descriptions are
> > not complete in the ultimate sense. Science does not, and cannot,
> > capture the divine upholding of these events. I would argue from a
> > biblical perspective that there are NO purely physical phenomena.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> > Keith B. Miller
> > Research Assistant Professor
> > Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
> > Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
> > 785-532-2250
> > http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Jan 17 14:37:14 2006