This week has been hectic so I missed this (and I know of others). Thanks George for
pointing me to it.
On Mon Jun 5 20:30 , "George Murphy" sent:
>{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.}
Ok, but that still doesn't get you past the self-levitating epistemology. The buddhist can
start with the Buddha and derive things from there. But once again, epistemologically, one
has assumed oneself to be right. The starting point is not important in a circular logic
position. And with circles, one can have more than one circle.
Jesus rose from the dead, therefore the incarnation is true. In the incarnation God
accommodated himself to the human condition to teach us true theology. This theology is
recorded in the Bible. But the Bible was written by men other than Jesus so God had to
inspire them to write the Bible. As with the incarnation, God's inspiration accommodated
the message the writers wrote to the culture of the day but not to the point of
interferring with the true theology. This true theology was written in the Bible and we
learn of it there.* The Bible tells us that Jesus rose from the dead, therefore the
incarnation is true. In the incarnation, God accommodated himself....
*{One could add here if one wants a statement that the Bible itself tells us it is God's
word and then a statement about God being truthful but it isn't required}
>
>That is circular/tautological.
>
>{But it's not what I do.}
Unfortunately, we will have to disagree on that. The fact is that you learned of the
resurrection through the Bible. And to then assume that the resurrection is true invokes
the circularity above.
>{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 make a habit of always directly addressing criticisms of my views so here it is. I have
said many times I can't prove that to be true. What I can prove is that that scenario is
1. non-circular
2. is not self-refuting or self-contradictory
3.is consistent with the observational data although admittedly direct confirmation is
lacking, but then for most of modern physics direct confirmation is lacking.
Thus, I have not placed my views on the same level as I see y'all placing the
accommodational theory. And I won't tell you that they are anything other than possible, so
I don't see what the point of your jab is.
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.
So, are you trying the old "I can have speculative theories as long as I show that Glenn's
views are speculative" approach? I am not criticizing your views for being speculative. I
am criticizing them for being logically circular and subjective. Show me the circularity
in my approach and I will seriously consider giving them up.
Secondly, you are equivocating on the words objective and speculative. Objective is not a
synonym for speculative. Sure, my views are speculative. Big deal. So are all theories
which we can advance. They gain firmness when they have confirmation.
But the word objective means that two people from various cultures could observe that there
is a tree standing in the middle of the quad. That is objective. Your views are not
objective in that you couldn't get a Buddhist or an atheist to agree with your view of God.
But I already know many atheists, buddhists and others, who will agree with me that there
was a Mediterranean flooding event. That is objective.
And my views are falsifiable, I don't see that yours are.
>Keeping a comparison of our approaches front and center is appropriate.}
A comparison does us no good here. Let's assume that I am totally wrong. That doesn't make
your views any less circular or subjective. So I don't see the point. I freely admit that
I can't prove my views. I haven't even been trying to do that because 1. proof is always
lacking in science, 2. I don't have the confirmatory data I would like to have (although
there is some) and 3. our views are not mutually exclusive.
>{1st, it's misleading to say that I "put everything into the cross." I
>start with the cross. It's not the same.
Lay out your logic and how it avoids circularity by short statements like I did above
>
>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.
But evidence for the crucifiction is not at issue and is not really important. what you
need is evidence for the resurrection. Lots of guys were crucified, not only by the Romans
by also by the Persians. Other than in Scripture, you have no evidence of that. Where is
the physical evidence for the resurrection TODAY?
>
>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.
Hmmmm... speculation which you find so distasteful in the Morton Scenarios. tsk tsk.
>
>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.
So, are you saying that there was no Mediterranean flooding event? That it isn't
historical? ARe you aware that the change in fauna was what geologists use to define the
Miocene/Pliocene boundary? Are you saying that the evidence for language, religion and
other humanlike activities found among the hominids is not coming out of archaeological
investigations into that period of history? I would say my views are indeed capable of
being investigated by the historical sciences. I can't prove there was an Adam or NOah
anymore than you can. Tell me how the cross proves that there was a Noah and Adam? If you
want to play the game right, then you need to be proving why Noah couldn't live earlier
than a particular time, or show that true mankind evolved after.
And the good buddhist, hearing of the real crucifiction will say what many atheists would
say---it is truly sad that humans can do that to other humans. To bad he's dead! The
crucifiction is not what is at issue here. Without the resurrection, you have absolutely no
reason to believe that Christ was anything more than just another poor slob who died a
horrible death.
>
>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."}
Why isn't it equally good for that Buddhist you want to convince of the crucifiction to say:
"If you will look at your experience of your life &
knowledge of the world from the standpoint of the Buddha, it will be more
meaningful than if you look at it from other standpoints."
How does one measure, in a scientific fashion, meaningfulness? What are the units of
meaningfulness? How would I compare the meaningfulness of Christ to the Christian vs.
Buddha to the Buddhist? If it is measured in miles walked or prayer wheel revolutions,
they win hands down.
>{The claim that the clergy don't want their religion to be real is quite
>false, as I already pointed out.}
You know, it would be more believable if things weren't always arranged so that there can
be no objective test of the ideas. In that respect, Morton Scenarios are testable---I am
still trying to figure out how much a barrel of meaningfulness goes for on the open market.
(If meaningfulness is indeed to be measured in barrels)
>
>{So how is your approach any better than starting with the cross?
Because it is not circular. Because it is falsifiable and doesn't talk about life being
more meaningful if viewed through the cross than it is for a Buddhist who views it through
Buddhism--something that has ZERO chance of being verified.
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.}
Sigh, as I have said (almost all the time but Bill Hamilton caught me once saying
differently), this scenario is not for evangelism. I don't go around spreading the gospel
of my scenario. If you go look on this list, I only mention it when it is attacked by
others (which is getting to be more often of late). It is to try to do two things (both
probable failures). 1. give the yecs what they want (historicity) and at the same time what
they need (advancement to the 21st century). Secondly, it is to try to stop people from
leaving the faith once they learn YEC is false.
>
>{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?}
Well, George, I listen to you theologians to get theology. I try not to talk about things I
have not researched quite well and as I told you, other parts of theology etc I am not
qualified in. Do I believe Jesus rose from the dead? Yes, but epistemologically, that is
a belief not a fact (YECs reading this, don't go ballistic or take this quote out of
context). At the moment, Ripley's believe it or not is on the TV(yeah I know, don't say
it), but they had on a group of people who think drinking bull urine will give them power
and strength (yum yum). I strongly suspect that they are fooling themselves, but hey,
maybe their religion After having seen places like Tibet, after having fooled myself while
a YEC, I have to ask the question if I am still fooling myself.Apparently you don't ever
ask yourself that question.
>{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.}
I would suggest that the progress is all in the mind of the theologians. I don't hear
scientists around the coffee bar saying "You know, there has been remarkable progress at
the interface of science and theology lately"
Nor do I hear them talking about the lastest theology of science book.
I had written:
>>But that means, that God inspires me to believe something which is beyond
>>human knowledge--the resurrection, walking through walls etc.
>
George replied:
>{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
Now right here is another assumption that you are right. In the context of the inspiration
of Scripture, how do you know God works within the capacities of created agents? The
skeptic would say that you can't know that that is how God works. He didn't tell you that,
it isn't written anywhere in scripture, it would imply that God can't use miracles. This
is merely an assumption on your part--and a quite speculative one at that. I thought you
didn't like speculation? (OK, you don't like speculation when I do it, but you think it is
ok when you do it).
At least my speculation is falsifiable. I am not sure how one would falsify the statement
that God acts withing the capacities of created agents. Do we stuff God into a lab to test
him with a polygraph?
-
>& 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.}
>
OK, Glad you clarified the miracle stuff. But now what you write means:
God works within the creative capacities of individuals EXCEPT WHEN HE DOESN'T.
How do we know when he doesn't? Does he tell anyone when he doesn't?
>{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.}
Somehow I don't see that the kenosis logically does this. Jesus didn't come here and tell
us the Amazing Stories.
>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.}
I know no such thing. Everytime I talk about ANY form of concordism, I am told that there
isn't any science or history in the account. Seeley mentioned that God accommodated false
statements in the accounts. I can't figure out why I would get all this opposition to
wanting reality, if you guys wanted reality in the Genesis accounts.
>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.}
>
Thank you for answering the question (See Michael Roberts, that is how it is done, now
almost all except you have answered the question). How does one measure 'illuminate
experience' In order to know if their claims help illuminate experience, one must measure
the quantity of illumination and compare it with Christian illumination. I know, I know,
you are not going to like the way I have turned this argument and probably I will be
accused of twisting it, but I don't see it that way. I think I am asking for proof of what
you say. Tell me how we determine if another religion illuminates experience? (I might
accept that certain peyote cults do that)
I wrote:
>My point is that what you claim as empirical support is a very weak sort of
>support.
>
George replied:
>{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.}
So, tell me how we measure expanatory power without using empiricism AKA concordism?
I wrote (and am leaving this in again so that more can hopefully remember that I am not
looking for proof
>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.
George replied:
>
>{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.
I would think that an account, supposedly inspired by God Almighty, who supposedly created
the heavens and the earth, and who presumably would know something about the creation
event, would have more credibility if it actually has a prayer of a chance of matching
history than if it said nothing historical. It seems to me that
"It might actually be true"
is better than
"it is just a theological polemic placed into the context of creation"
when it comes to creating credibility.
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.}
You are right here. One can't rule out the Von Daniken perspective on excellent sources.
Received on Fri Jun 9 16:58:08 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 09 2006 - 16:58:08 EDT