Re: Let's start with the assumption that I am right!

----- Original Message -----
From: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: <glennmorton@entouch.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>; "'George Murphy'"
<gmurphy@raex.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Let's start with the assumption that I am right!

On Sun Jun 4 14:33 , "George Murphy" sent:

>{You'd have to give some examples of circular logic in the strict sense.
>But if your going to call it "circular logic" when someone argues that
>confidence in his/her initial presuppositions is strengthened a posteriori
>by their ability to explain & make sense of phenomena, so be it. I call it
>the way science generally works & a legitimate way for theology to work.

See, George, given that everyone says that observational/scientific data
isn't being
taught in the early accounts, it is hard to see how the presuppositions are
being
strengthened a posteriori. If the account is a polemic against other gods
and is not a
history, how do you strengthen that presupposition with a posteriori
observations?

Secondly, concerning circular logic, it is everywhere. Let's start with the
assumption
that God accommodates the science to the ANE cosmology but not to the point
where it
interferes with the theology. I believe that is your assumption. Thus the
theology of
the Bible is the true theology. The theology tells us how powerful God is
and that he is
all-knowing. The theology also tells us that God inspired the Bible to
communicate with
mankind. Therefore a powerful omniscient God inspired men to write the
Bible. But the
Bible has scientifically false statements in it. Since God is truly
powerful and
omniscientthere must be a reason for these false statements. The theology
of the Bible
tells us that man could only accept milk. Therefore, God accommodated his
message to the
culture of the day but not to the point where it interferes with the
theology. Thus the
Bible is the true theology.........

{But I DON'T start by assuming "accomodation" (or whatever you want to call
it, as below). I start with the theology of the cross, of which kenosis is
part, & then see that "accomodation" is one implication of that.}

That is circular/tautological.

{But it's not what I do.}

>& it's wrong to say that modern theologians are uninterested in concord
>with
>reality. Many of them are uninterested in concord of Gen.1-11 read as
>historical narrative with the early history of the earth but that doesn't
>mean that they are unconcerned with the history of Israel, the life, death
>&
>resurrection of Jesus or agreement between their self-experience & the
>law-gospel claims of the Christian faith. You have elevated the
>historicity
>of early Genesis to THE issue which determines whether or not one is a
>theological realist. That's far too narrow a view.}

Maybe, but let me point out once again, where I see the importance. If the
REAL God
inspired the Bible, then He would know about the creation and could have
done a better
job of communicating to mankind the reality. So, in some sense, this

{Perhaps the real God wanted us to use our brains to learn about the
physical origins of the world & knew - as I've said before - that telling us
about it would short-circuit the process of human maturation. & yes, that's
a "perhaps" but no more so - I'd say less so - than "perhapses" like your
resurrected stillborn mutant apelike creature or survivor of the
Mediterranean flood, both > 5 Myr ago. I will refer several times to the
completely speculative nature of those supposed concords, which I'll call
"Morton's Scenarios" for brevity. It's misleading for you to suggest that
my approach is lacking objectivity when your scenarios are so speculative.
Keeping a comparison of our approaches front and center is appropriate.}

>Now, as to your first sentence, I read your article before replying. I
>simply don't
>think you have a persuasive case. If that is to be called ignoring your
>point, so be it.
>While you think I have little respect for theologians, maybe you have too
>much faith in
>the assumptions you use in that article. I disagree that there has been
>
>{1st, the assumptions that I use in that article are things I've discussed
>at length here, in numerous articles in PSCF & other places & in the book
>that I refer to in the article. So I hope that at least long-time
>participants on the asa list will realize that they aren't as sketchy as
>that brief article might make them appear to those not familiar with
>science-theology discussions. Those assumptions are that "true theology
>and
>recognition of God are in the crucified Christ" (i.e., a theology of the
>cross) & that the divine kenosis displayed in the Incarnation is a key to
>understanding God's action in the world. I have a great deal of faith in
>those claims, though I certainly don't claim to be inerrant in the way I
>work out their implications. But if assumptions are to be questioned,
>those
>are where we should start.

You put everything into the cross. At first blush that sounds so good. But
the
epistemological problem is that you start with the concept that the cross is
true and
derive everything from there. But, I will say this, the cross is only true
IF and only
if the Bible is true. If the history of the death and resurrection of Christ
recounted in
the Gospels is false, then the cross is false. Making the cross the basis
works find and
dandy so long as you are dealing with people who share your assumption. But
I deal with
many atheists at work and in China I dealt with both atheists and buddhists.
If I say to
them, start where you do, it doesn't work. They don't believe the cross,
because they
believe the Bible to be false. So, George, if I only dealt with believers,
as most
pastors do most of the time, I would be like you. When one gets away from
the Church and
sees what the world is like out there, it is a much more complex place.
They view us, as
I view the Mormons--pitiful people who are very nice but have this crazy
belief system.

{1st, it's misleading to say that I "put everything into the cross." I
start with the cross. It's not the same.

2d, there is strong evidence for the life & crucifixion of Jesus. It's not
as if the gospel accounts were just free-floating texts inaccessible to
historical investigation. The cross is not a "could have been" event like
Morton's Scenarios.

3d, while the resurrection of Christ of course doesn't get the assent from
historians that his crucifixion does, good arguments can be made for it.
Again see Wright, O'Collins, Pannenberg &c.

4th, atheists or Buddhists in China may not be familiar with arguments for
the historicity of these events. That then becomes part of the apologetic
task in that context. At least the putative crucifixion of a particular Jew
~2000 years ago is within the realm of real historical investigation, unlike
Morton's Scenarios.

5th, the argument is not "Start from the cross and everything else follows."
It is (or should be), "If you will look at your experience of your life &
knowledge of the world from the standpoint of the cross, it will be more
meaningful than if you look at it from other standpoints." But a corollary
is, "If you won't, it won't."}
>
>OTOH I really don't know what your basic theological position is. (&
>please
>understand that that isn't meant as a questioning of your Christian
>commitment.)

The problem you have here is that I am very hard to classify because I don't
follow in
paths so well trodden that there is little new to discover. And, as you see
today with my
Hill flood post, I demand that the consequences be consistent. The
positions like yours,
and the YEC position have reached a stalemate. They can be taken no further.
They are as
fully developed as they will ever be. And neither of them will solve the
problem. We need
a historical-evolutionary view. That is the only real viable compromise for
this issue.
The laity, unlike the clergy, want their religion to be real. But the
clergy and the
scientists want it to accept modern science. There is only one way to get
there--and that
is with an evolutionary interpretation of the Bible which maintains
historicity. I will
use a box I have used before but haven't resurrected in a long time. Ignore
the .'s
because they will be needed by the awful archive to maintain formatting

{The claim that the clergy don't want their religion to be real is quite
false, as I already pointed out.}

Evolution...............................No.evolution
Non.Historical..a....................b..non-historical
Bible.........-------------------------..Bible
..............I........................I
..............I........................I
..............I........................I
..............I........................I
..............I........................I
..............I........................I
...........c..I........................I.d
Evolution......------------------------.No.evolution
Historical.Bible........................Historical
........................................Bible
</pre>

This is a chart of the possible positions on the bible
being historical and evolution. ICR occupies position D, I
only know of one person who occupies B. Most scientists
who are christians occupy A. I occupy C. To my knowledge
no one has previously occupied C in the sense that I
beleive the events are real, not allegorical, not mythical.

{Coulda been, mighta been real - i.e., supposed events which because of
their smallness of scale & remoteness in time have no realistic possibility
of ever being confirmed by historical or scientific investigation. Not to
mention that the resurrection of a stillborn apelike creature isn't a man
being formed from the dust of the earth anyway.}

We have to think of something, some scenario. Many of
 the most vociferous atheists on Talk Origins were former
Christians of both YEC and more liberal stripes who became
convinced that the Bible was FALSE. Historically and
scientifically false! Unless those in Christian apologetics
provide a scenario which allows the Bible to be true in a
conventional sense of that word, we are failing to provide
the proper level of support to our children in this very
scientific age. If I do like Hugh Ross and tell my kids
that Adam was created less than 60,000 years ago and then
they take an anthro course in college and find the things I
have been talking about, what are they to think? Will they
trust me more? Will they be more firm in their faith? I
doubt it.

I will fully admit that I am a total failure at convincing many people of
this course of
action. But failure to convince, doesn't mean failure of the cause itself.

{So how is your approach any better than starting with the cross? One of
your arguments against that was that Chinese atheists & Buddhists wouldn't
accept it. They don't accept your scenario either. At least we know that
some people have been converted by the word of the cross.}

 I mean, what do you organize your thinking out of your faith
>around? What's your basic theological principle for biblical
>interpretation? It seems to me sometimes that it must be "God said it, I
>can concordize it, that settles it" but maybe I'm wrong.}

No, it isn't settled. That is where you go wrong. In my view, unless a
religion, any
religion, can solve these tensions, it is doomed to die as education levels
rise. But I
can't hold what I view you holding (and you will deny holding) that IF God
says it, it
doesn't have to be real but it is still true. (I know you claim that there
is reality int
he genesis accounts, but you have argued for God not telling/inspiring the
strict truth
here.

If you want my general principle, I don't believe faerie tales. YEC is a
faerie tale and
so is much of the Bible if one doesnt want to believe things like talking
snakes or
floating ax-heads. Of course I have said all this before to you, but we keep
saying the
same thing over and over to each other.

{You still haven't told me anything about your theology beyond the fact that
the Bible is historical. Does Jesus have anything to do with it? Is he
just another historical fact? Is faith in him of any importance for the way
one reads the Bible?}

>1. any progress in the science/religion area over the past 25 years because
>religion keeps
>saying the same thing. There has, however, been scientific progress.
>
>{Glenn, I know that you're very well read in a lot of fields but I don't
>know how much that applies to theology. Correct me if I'm wrong but I
>suspect that most of the theology you've read has been toward the
>Evangelical-fundamentalist end of the spectrum & that much of it has to do
>with origins issues.

George, I will confess to not being as widely read in theology as I am on
many other
topics. But, what little theology I have read has been from those who are
far more
liberal than I. You may not think Blocher is to the left of me, but I do. I
have also
read a couple of your books, and you are most assuredly not what you
perceive me to have
read. I have read Paul Seeley's excellent book and I do consider it to be
theology and it
is the toughest one I have encountered. I have a couple of Polkinghorne'
books. I have
also read a theology book on Adam, Eve and the Genome, which has very
liberal theologians
like Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, Laurel Schneider, Theodore Jennings, Ken
Stone, and Lee
H. Butler. They are all at Chicago. I actually can't think of a theologian
whom I have
read who is conservative as I define that term.

As a rule, I tend to try to read those who would disagree with me rather
than reading
those who agree with me. This has a whole variety of uses. I even employed
this
technique when preparing Foundation, Fall and Flood. I sent it to 5 YECs and
5 atheists
to have them review it. There is no better way to find your weaknesses than
to have your
enemies critique your stuff. Your friends will tell you what you want to
hear and thus
are useless.

>If that's the case then you need to look at some other
>theologians. Of course in one sense Christian theology is supposed to
>"keep
>saying the same thing." If it doesn't keep a strong connection with "the
>same thing" then it's probably heretical. But the work of Barbour,
>Torrance, McGrath, Polkinghorne, N. Murphy, Pannenberg, Santmire,
>Cole-Turner, R.J Russell & T. Peters, just to mention a few, is enough to
>show that what I said about progress in this area was true. & I'll have
>the
>audacity to add some of my own work because 25 years ago no one was trying
>to deal with science-theology dialogue in terms of Luther's theology of the
>cross.}
>

I have enjoyed your books, but don't find them useful at solving the problem
that needs
to be solved.

{Thank you for disabusing me about the limits of your reading. But I'll
repeat, reading the people I listed in above should show you that there has
been progress in the science-theology dialogue over the past 25 years.
Whether you agree with us or not, we're not just saying the same old thing.}

>{My phrase "if the Holy Spirit acted within the limits of human knowledge"
>referred specifically to the process of inspiration of scripture. So the
>examples you cite are irrelevant to the immediate argument.}

No they are not irrelevant and you shouldn't dismiss them so easily and
quickly. If our
faith is because of the H. S. working in our lives, then we are inspired to
become
christians. But that means, that God inspires me to believe something which
is beyond
human knowledge--the resurrection, walking through walls etc.

{Yes, but that phrase referred to the limited question of the inspiration of
scripture. The examples you cited have to do with the broader question of
how God works in relation to natural processes. & there yes, I do say that
(in accord with kenosis) God acts within the capacities of created agents -
& add (when I'm being careful) "in the vast majority of cases" or "except
for a set of events of measure zero" or something similar. I do not deny
the reality of miracles but do say (a) the description I've given of divine
action doesn't rule out the possibility of anything that can be described as
"miracle" and (b) Goedel's theorem suggests that not everything can be
described in terms of the laws of physics, & thus may provide one way of
thinking about the miraculous.}

>>{This is much ado about not very much. I have no investment in the term
>"accomodation" & use it simply because it's traditional. But the basic idea
>is that God operates within the limits of contemporary human knowledge in
>those fields. That's what needs to be discussed, not the meaning of the
>word "accomodation."}

First off, it is useful to be precise with the language.

Secondly, contemporary human knowledge today is that dead men don't rise
after 3 days.
Men don't walk through walls or walk on water. God is clearly working
outside the limits
of knowledge of this contemporary culture.

{Same confusion. If, for the sake of argument, the appearances of the risen
Christ reported in the Gospels are based on direct eyewitness accounts of
Mary Magdalene, Peter &c reported to the evangelists then those writers were
"simply" using sources in the way historians & journalists are supposed to.
There need be nothing miraculous about those reports. The fact that the
witnesses & writers didn't understand how Jesus could have been raised in
terms of natural processes, & that we understand it as miraculous in an
absolute sense doesn't change that.}

Thirdly, you have no real evidence that God limits himself thusly other than
your belief
that this is so. God didn't tell you that he limits himself in the
inspiration process.
Shoot, we don't really even know how inspiration works, so it seems a bit
presumptuous to
say what God does during it.

{Well, we do know that some of the statements in the OT don't agree with
modern science & seem to come from the cultural views of the ANE. The sky
isn't a solid firmament & there aren't any waters above the non-existent
firmament. What I've tried to do is explain why kenosis should lead us to
expect that if God were to inspire creation stories ~ 2500 - 3000 years ago
we should expect to find things like that in them.}

>
>I would also like to know how you verify the part of the above paragraph
>which reads:
>
>"to the extent that it didn't obscure important aspects of revelation.'
>
>I would contend that this is an ad hoc theological self-protection
>conjecture. Why?
>Because if human understanding did obscure the important aspects of
>revelation we would
>be wrong. This is the location of your theological assumption that we are
>always right.
>If we aren't right, then that ad hoc assumption can't be true. If we are
>wrong, then God
>DID let the contemporary understanding obscure the important theological
>message. But we
>could not possibly KNOW that God didn't let human understanding mess up the
>revelation.
>I would also say you have no evidence to back up this assertion. You have
>no way to
>verify the truth or falsity of that phrase.
>
>Please tell me how you know that God didn't let human understanding
>interfere with
>theology when he clearly DID let it interfere in other ways.
>
>I chose concordism and the use of verification of the biblical
>interpretation to avoid
>such ad hoc epistemological fixes.
>
>{Yes, it's an assumption that scripture is the inspired witness to God's
>revelation. That's connected with the basic claim I made earlier, that
>God's self-revelation is in Christ. We wouldn't know of that if it weren't
>for scripture.

This is a start. If we wouldn't know it if it weren't for scripture, that
implies very
strongly that Scripture is apriori in our knowledge of Christ and that it
MUST be true,
or the Christ is NOT God's self-revelation. And if that is true, then it
follows that
epistemological priority must be given to the truth of the Scripture. The
oreder is this:

Scripture-->knowledge of Christ-->belief in the self-revelation of
God-->belief that the
cross is the center of the unvierse.

So, I would contend that in order for scripture to be true it must tell us
real things
about history (broadly defined). And that is what the accommodationalists
don't want it
to do--tell us any actual history.

{Come on Glenn! You know it's not the case that we "don't WANT it ... to
tell us ANY actual history." Of course there are historical narratives in
the Bible. & even with early Genesis I've always agreed that there are
fragments of historical, geographical &c data embedded in texts of other
types. & it's not a question of what we "want" to be there but of what
textual study & investigation of the relevant history & science indicate is
there.}

{&
In your penultimate email you said I was ignoring a point. Well you are
ignoring the
question I have asked. Why couldn't a Tibetan Buddhist, a Mormon, a Great
Green Slug
believer or even a follower of good ole' Oogaboogah claim that their gods
accomodated the
science for their holybook writers but not to the point where it interfered
with the true
theology????

Please don't ignore this question. Can they do this validly? I think I have
only gotten
one person on your side to actually answer the question.}

{Sure they could argue that. But it order for the argument to be comparable
in plausibility with what I've said they would have to show how that claim
followed from fundamental principles of GGS or whatever theology. & the
even more fundamental question of course is whether or not their claims help
to illuminate experience.}

>& the biblical witness to Christ receives confirmation from
>the ability of its message to help us understand ourselves and our world.

{The buddhists would say the same. One of the best geophysicists I worked
with in China
would say that Confuscious does the same. He got me to read the Analects and
also The
Great Learning. I would have to agree with him that Kong Fu zi is a great
help in
understanding our world and ourselves, but then, so is Nicolai Machiavelli.

My point is that what you claim as empirical support is a very weak sort of
support.

{Sure. The real test comes in comparing those claims. & there's no need
for a Christian to insist that everything in other religious or ethical
systems is wrong. The scope of their explanatory power is a significant
issue.}

>& before you go postal over that, tell me how YOU prove that Jesus is Lord,
>Savior &c? How do we get from the things you think show the historical
>reliability of Genesis to the faith claim that Jesus is the Son of God -
>without any "leaps of faith" or any illogical things of that sort?}

Sigh, once again, you haven't been listening. I have about 10 times since I
came back
said that proof is not possible. Why is it so hard to get that across?
Maybe it is
because people prefer to put on their listen-to-the-yec ear filter when I
speak. I even
admitted to you that assumptions are necessary and now you say this. Tsk
tsk, you should
try to listen a wee bit better.

As I said before I am looking for observational support, not proof. CAN
EVERYONE IN THE
HOUSE PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS? I AM NOT LOOKING FOR PROOF. I AM LOOKING FOR
SUPPORTIVE
EVIDENCE THAT IS OBJECTIVE RATHER THAN SUBJECTIVE. Helping us understand
ourselves and
the world is totally subjective because a Mormon or a Buddhist would say the
same about
their religion---I have actually heard them say it.

{OK, sorry for my loose usage. Let me rephrase it in indicative form.
Morton's Scenarios don't come anywhere near providing a plausiblity argument
for the belief that the Bible comes from God. Even if one beliefs those
highly speculative claims, they would only show that some remarkable source
of data was used by the writer of Genesis. & even if one assumes that
Genesis must have been inspired by God, it doesn't mean that the rest of the
OT was. & even if one accepts that, it doesn't mean that the historical
data in the NT was. & even if one assumes that, it doesn't show that the
faith claims about Jesus in the NT are true.}

{Your call.}

No, both our calls. you are not entire out of the decision loop here if we
go for
another round.

{I know that. We can continue at least till I leave in a couple of weeks,
though some of my responses may be slow.}

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Mon Jun 5 20:31:12 2006