Re: Dembski theodicy

Few things inspire me to cease lurking these days, but this crossed
the threshold.

To paraphrase P.G. Wodehouse, my thoughts on coming up after reading
Dembski's views were various. Holy Shit!! was one of the first. I give
Dembski credit for laying his cards on the table was another. A third
was that he has "philosopher's disease" whereby the holder of a
PhD. in philosophy feels qualified to answer questions in any
field. This may be the most virulent of its family, exceeding both
"physicist's disease" and "biologist's disease" (whereby the PhD
holder believes the PhD is a license to offer the authoritative
interpretation of ancient Near-Eastern literature).

A dominant feeling after reading this is that Dembski and I inhabit
different intellectual universes, between which communication is
difficult and more likely futile. The feeling parallels that of a post
I made last November noting that in light of how disconnected Dawkins
idea of god was from Xty it was illusory and to think that we were
having a meaningful discussion when we discussed science and Christian
faith with the rest of the world (and perhaps just with ourselves).
 
Another dominant feeling is that the fact that someone who holds such
views can be so influential in evangelical circles is evidence
supporting the proposition that evangelical Christianity is a
sociological category describing a group of people who hold (in
varying degrees) an incoherent set of abstractions, severed from the
abstractions' roots. The mathematician/philosopher Dembski is using
abstract "axioms" delivered in a particular form by an evangelical
tradition and tying himself in knots trying to make sense of them.

In light of these thoughts, the two big questions would be:

1. Is meaningful communication possible? or Is there evidence that
   meaningful communication is possible?

2. Is evangelical Christianity intellectually coherent? (this
   discussion would be futile on the listserv)

Thoughtfully yours,

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:27:35PM -0500, Keith Miller wrote:
> I just ran across an article by Dembski on natural evil.� I found it
> interesting because I am convinced that the problem of natural evil is one
> of the primary issues that drives the anti-evolution movement -- whether
> YEC or ID.�
> The article is entitled "Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern
> Science"� and can be found at
> <[1]http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.04.christian_theodicy.pdf>.
> I will just make a couple comments.
> First Dembski argues from the position that all perceived "natural evil"
> including not only animal death but natural processes such as earthquakes
> and hurricanes are a consequence of human sin.� He further states that
> this is the traditional and orthodox Christian position.� He commends YECs
> for holding to what he sees as a fundamental theological position.
> He states -- "�Except for preserving the face-value interpretation of
> certain Old
> Testament passages (like Psalm 93), nothing much seems to have been
> riding theologically on preserving geocentrism as a proper interpretation
> of Scripture. The same cannot be said for a young earth. A young earth
> seems to be required to maintain a traditional understanding of the Fall.
> And yet a young earth clashes sharply with mainstream science. Christians
> therefore seem to be in a position of having to choose their poison. They
> can go with a young earth, thereby maintaining theological orthodoxy but
> committing scientific heresy; or they can go with an old earth, thereby
> committing theological heresy but maintaining scientific orthodoxy."
> This view of "natural evil" would in effect require a non-fallen world to
> be completely static.� Natural processes such as earthquakes and storms
> are consequences of a dynamic Earth.� They result from processes as simple
> as heat transfer.� These dynamic processes are also necessary for the
> existence and preservation of life.� Any natural process generates some
> potential risk.� If the wind blows, it may fell a tree, and that tree may
> fall on someone.
> He later states -- "This view of God's redemption in Christ is basic
> Christian theology. I
> regard it as not only true but also mandatory for sound Christian faith.
> Nonetheless, it presupposes that all evil in the world ultimately traces
> back
> to human sin. For this view of redemption to be plausible within our
> current noetic environment therefore requires an explanation of how
> natural evil could precede the first human sin and yet result from it."
> I would take issue with his claim that his view of natural evil
> corresponds to the orthodox one.� I will let the more theologically
> trained among us respond.
> Dembski's solution -- He argues that God, knowing of the Fall, acted
> "preemptively" so that the effects of the Fall preceded the disobedience
> of Adam and Eve.��
> "God's immediate response to the Fall is therefore not to create anew
> but to control the damage. In the Fall, humans rebelled against God and
> thereby invited evil into the world. The challenge God faces in
> controlling
> the damage resulting from this original sin is how to make humans realize
> the full extent of their sin so that, in the fullness of time, they can
> fully
> embrace the redemption in Christ and thus experience full release from
> sin. For this reason, God does not merely allow personal evils (the
> disordering of our souls and the sins we commit as a consequence) to run
> their course subsequent to the Fall. In addition, God also brings about
> natural evils (e.g., death, predation, parasitism, disease, drought,
> famines,
> earthquakes, and hurricanes), letting them run their course prior to the
> Fall. Thus, God himself disorders the creation, making it defective on
> purpose. God disorders the world not merely as a matter of justice (to
> bring judgment against human sin as required by God�s holiness) but even
> more significantly as a matter of redemption (to bring humanity to its
> senses by making us realize the gravity of sin)."
> He latter argues that the Garden was formed to isolate Adam and Eve� from
> this fallen world until they disobeyed.
> Dembski then states how he thinks this affects human origins.� �
> "A final question now remains: How did the first humans gain entry to
> the Garden? There are two basic options: progressive creation and
> evolving creation.��In the first, God creates the first humans in the
> Garden. In the second, the first humans evolve from primate ancestors
> outside the Garden and then are brought into the Garden. Both views
> require direct divine action. In the former, God specially creates the
> first
> humans from scratch. In the latter, God introduces existing human-like
> beings from outside the Garden but then transforms their consciousness so
> that they become rational moral agents made in God's image. With an
> evolving creation, this transformation of consciousness by God on entry
> into the Garden is essential to the kairological reading of Genesis. For
> if
> the first humans bore the full image and likeness of God outside the
> Garden prior to the Fall, they would have been exposed to the evils
> present
> there -- evils for which they were not yet responsible. This would be
> problematic since humanity's responsibility and culpability in the Fall
> depends on the Fall occurring without undue temptations or pressures.
> These temptations and pressures are absent in the Garden but not outside."
> So it seems that the problem of natural evil is a significant factor in
> how Demski understands creative history.
> Keith
> �
>
> Keith B. Miller
> Research Assistant Professor
> Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
> Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
> 785-532-2250
> [2]http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
>
> References
>
> Visible links
> 1. http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.04.christian_theodicy.pdf
> 2. http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon                   |   (724)223-6146         
Physics Department               |   jcannon@washjeff.edu 
Washington and Jefferson College |      
Washington, PA 15301             |