Re: Signs of Scientism

Well Pim, I don't have time or energy to take the bait on a debate about
liberal theology generally. If you think "the testimony of scripture, the
Apostolic witness, the church fathers, the major creeds, and the historic
doctrinal positions of all the major denominations" are "circular reasons,"
we really don't have much reasonable basis for a discussion. I'd note that
the ASA Statement of Faith (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/faithASA.html)
recognizes "the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the
Bible in matters of faith and conduct" and further incorporates the Nicene
and Apostle's Creeds "as brief, faithful statements of Christian doctrine
based upon Scripture," both of which affirm the historicity of the
resurrection.

Are you an ASA member Pim? It seems a shame that, in one of the principal
organs of discussion for "a fellowship of men and women in science and
disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word
of God" (http://www.asa3.org), we'd have to argue about whether our Lord
really did "on the third day [rise] again according to the Scriptures"
(Nicene Creed).

I'd still very much like the perspectives of Keith and other ASA members on
why the ability to observe and reasonably believe in a "supernatural" event
such as the resurrection differs from the ability to observe and reasonably
believe in "supernatural" creative events in natural history. As I've
understood the discussion so far, it's not only that there's no evidence for
such "supernatural" creative events, its that such events are in principle
not detectable. I'm trying to understand the "in principle not detectable"
part. Thanks.

On 1/17/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> All are circular reasonings.
>
> > 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."
>
> Not all people accept divine existence on faith and thus there is s real
> question to be asked here, can we distinguish between a universe with
> and without divine processes? My answer is that we cannot.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> Sure, and the stopping of the sun and eclipses, and comets ... Even the
> motion of planets. But why should we accept this as empirical evidence
> for the existence of supernatural processes. Can you explain what you
> would consider to be a supernatural process?
>
> > Adopting a robust theology of God, there doesn't seem to be any reason
> > to reject this historic understanding.
>
> With the understanding that this historic 'understanding' need not be
> accurate, can even be self contradicting?
>
> > Moreover, there are affirmative reasons to adhere to the historic
> > understanding, including respect for scripture and preservation of a
> > proper theology of God.
>
>
> Why?
>
> > 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.
>
> I find your claims without much merrit. You make claims which fail to
> make a logical positive argument other than by denigrating those who
> adhere to liberal theology as you call it.
> Is ID not constraining God by placing him in Gaps or our ignorance? Why
> is ID's insistence that we are able to detect God, somehow different here?
>
> To what level should we insist on historicity? And at what cost? And
> why? Liberal theologists seem to find much support in their faith from
> the same documents in which you find support for your claims.
>
> Liberal Theology sounds quite interesting
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernist_Christianity)
>
> * Liberal theology is individualistic
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism>, and as such values
> personal and subjective <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective>
> religious experience above doctrines
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine>, Church authority
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_authority> or the literal
> word of scripture <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripture>.
>
> * It claims that a religion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion>
> is a community of individuals united by common intuitions
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition> and experiences, and
> therefore the value of the Church is in providing a supportive
> framework in which new conceptions of God
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God> can be explored, not in issuing
> decrees, upholding rigid dogmas
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma> or in exercising power over
> the religious community.
>
> * It maintains that, while God remains immutable, the theist
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theist>'s relationship and
> understanding of God change through history, and therefore no
> theological truths are necessarily fixed, as each person's
> experience can reveal a novel aspect of God.
>
> * Some liberals do not maintain that God is immutable, but instead
> assert that God changes alongside creation. The rationale being
> that an immutable God in a changing universe would eventually
> result in a gulf separating creator from creation. For more on
> this see Process Theology
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Theology> and Alfred North
> Whitehead <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead>.
>
>
>
Received on Wed Jan 18 08:43:40 2006