>>>No. My argument is not circular in the sense you claim. It is a procedure often used in science. E.g., we have to assume the Schroedinger equation or something equivalent. Having done that we can explain quantum phenomena, calculate energy levels, cross sections, transition rates &c, & the fact that these agree with observation then strengthens our confidence in the Schroedinger equation. But we have not thereby "proved" that the Schroedinger equation is correct - It may require extensions, such as non-linearities. In a similar way, I start from the belief that God is revealed in the cross-resurrection event. That then provides - I claim - coherent explanations of other things - e.g., why, if there is a God, he would work through as seemingly cruel a process as natural selection. The more thinks one can make understandable in that way, the more confidence you naturally have in your basic assumptions. But I've never said that I have "proved" that God is revealed in the cross-resurrection event.<<<
GRM: One of the things I got outside the Grand Mosque in Xi'an was an Islamic praise DVD. I didn't think that was what I was buying but that is what I got. Watching the musicians, if they hadn't had the skull caps and weren't singing in Malay and Arabic, they would look just like a Christian group. I have another DVD I bought in Lhasa, Tibet which seems to be a Tibetan Buddhist celebrating his Buddhism. To see his devotion to his religion makes it appear that he thinks his religion provides a coherent explanation of things. Now, I keep trying to point out that just because you think something is a coherent explanation doesn't make it an OBJECTIVE coherent explanation. And given the Islamic guys who seem to be quite happy and satisfied with their choice, and the Tibetan with his, and you with yours, it seems to me that you are doing what the title of this thread indicates---starting with the assumption you are right.
>>>You keep saying below that my argument is circular but it isn't. You can take this as my response to all those statements<<<<
GRM: Until I see your logic on how you avoid circularity (which I showed in my last post in this thread), I will not think your answer very adequate.
.
>>>& of course you or a Buddhist can assume anything you wish but in order to show that that has any explanatory value you have to actually work out the explanation. <<<
GRM: well if I can't get you to explain how you avoid the circularity I noted--which basically comes from having to learn about the resurrection through the Bible, which tells you that it is right-- then I don't think you have actually provided the explaination. In other words, I don't see you doing what you want the Buddhist to do. Having spoken with others who have lived in Asia, they know how difficult it is to witness to people who basically think they are right, just like you do.
>>>Having said this, I will add that there is a certain amount of subjectivity in the claim that the basic assumption "provides coherent explanations" of things. I'll say more about this later.<<<
GRM: A certain amount of subjectivity? It is all subjective so long as you avoid empirical verification.
I argued:
>>>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....<<<
George replied:
>>>>That's your argument, not mine. & the parody would be less convincining if it recognized that accomodation is far from being the only thing that a theology of the cross helps us to understand. In fact it's only recently that I've realized the connection between the 2 ideas. Working on that is just one element in my program, & a relatively new one. <<<
GRM: YEs it is my argument and it is one that you don't address or answer. Lay out where the circle is broken. Or present your succinct line of logic in a syllogism form.
>>>It's not a "jab" but a comparison of the plausibility of your approach with mine. & it doesn't matter whether the purpose of yours is evangelism, apologetics, or simply providing something that you personally can believe. It is what you think is a better way of supporting Christian claims than what I present. & it is not just "admittedly lacking direct confirmation" but lacking any realistic possibility at all of either direct or moderately indirect confirmation. What is the possibility of human beings today or any time in the future confirming that God actually resurrected a stillborn mutant apelike creature over 5 million years ago? About as close to zero as you can get.<<<<
GRM: I don't mind a jab. Debate is merely jab after jab. See, I don't believe that you are offering anything that works, unless I assume it works before I believe it.
GRM: I will agree that the part of my view which you mention above is not verifiable. But then NOTHING God does is verifiable. It is verifiable that there was a Mediterranean infilling 5.5 million years ago. It is verifiable that hominids first arose around that time. It is verifiable that small brained creatures can perform complex tasks. It is verifiable that religion goes back hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. It is verifiable in a probablistic way that language was in existence at least by 750 kyr ago.
GRM: So let me ask you what is the possiblity of verifying that God accommodated his message? About zero as well.
>>>No. I'm saying that if you're going to criticize my approach you ought to have something you think is at least as good or better, & you don't. The objectivity of your approach is a kind of legal fiction. <<<<
GRM: so you are saying that the verification of the Mediterranean infilling is a 'legal fiction? You are saying that the verification of religion going back hundreds of thousands of years ago is a legal fiction? YOu are saying that verification of the existence of hominids at the same time as the Mediterrranean infilling is a legal fiction? Get real.
>>>>The question is not whether there was a Mediterranean flooding event but whether one man named Noah with his family and a bunch of animals survived it in a boat. & it's not whether humans descended from apelike ancestors but whether God resurrected a stillborn mutant one millions of years ago. No, your views are not in any realistic sense falsifiable. The claim that there are gold plates with the theory of everything inscribed on them under a rock on the fourth planet of a certain star in M31 is "falsifiable" in about the same sense that your claims are.<<<
GRM: Ok, George, two can play this game. You believe, I presume that man has the image of God. You also believe in evolution. Is your view of when and how the spirit of God was inserted into man verifiable anymore than that one part of my views? How do YOU verify the insertion of the image of God into man? There is an old saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. There is nothing verifiable about your account, At least I have something that is verifiable.
GRM:How much does a barrel of meaningfulness go for on the open market, George? Without even looking I bet you didn't answer that question from last time. I will leave this in my response and acknowledge error if you surprise me below by answering that.
I wrote:
>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.
George replied:
>>>>I would probably resort to ridicule too if I had to argue that your supposed apelike creature resurrection event was as accessible to real historical investigation as the putative resurrection of Jesus.<<<
GRM: George, you are the one who can dish it out (telling me how speculative my veiws are) but can't take it when I point out the similar thing in your views. It isn't ridicule, it is called calling your bluff.
>>>
As I said, I'm not questioning the Mediterranean flood. That's not the issue. & I don't need to prove that there was a Noah and Adam in the sense you mean. For the latter, see my article in the recent PSCF - which may make you retch.<<<
GRM:So, you admit that I have somethign real in my view. What is real in your scenario? The first Adam isn't real. The Genesis account isn't real. God only appears to be the creator. Are you sure that the second Adam is real? Why on earth would you believe anything in the Bible? If I had your views, I would be an atheist.
>>>Indeed. It is the cross-resurrection event which is significant. It is the cross in the narrow sense that reveals the character of God. It is because of the resurrection that we know about - a somewhat simplistic distinction but it has to suffice for now. I have not always emphasized this as strongly as I might have.<<<
GRM: But you have to assume it is true without the slightest modern day verification. The only verification was for the apostles. We have none.
>>>
1 liter of meaningfulness is worth 100 meters of speculation.<<<
GRM: I didn't think you would really explain this nonsense. George, you said that life would be more meaningful for the Christian than for the Buddhist. That was your claim. I didn't make it, but when I ask you to back up this rather silly claim and explain how one would measure meaningfulness, you give me the above. All scientific theories start out without any verification. In that sense they are speculation. So, you seem to think that 1 liter of meanignfulness is worth 100 scientific hypotheses? George, your fideism is showing.
>>>Actually my approach isn't intended primarily as an apologetic device either. It's an attempt to provide a deeper understanding of the scientific world for Christians. I am not primarily an apologete. But if one is going to do apologetics, I think it should be from a Christian standpoint. In any case it seems odd to criticize my views for being unable to convince Buddhists & atheists while admitting that your views don't convince anyone.<<<
GRM: I wasn't criticizing your views for failing to convince atheists and Buddhists. I was criticizing your views for their lack of objectivity. That means, that you have a totally subjective system. Why is such a system different from the YEC position which has a totally subjective set of YEC-facts which only they can believe? You dont seem to understand what objectivity means.
>>>>
I do ask that question. But here I've been asking you a question, not about what you believe but about how you try to organize your thinking about your faith in a coherent way. Maybe you don't try.<<<
GRM: George, whatever valid criticisms one might throw at me or my views, this is about the dumbest. You seriously think people here are going to think that I don't organize my faith in a coherent way? They may disagree with my views, but that? You over reach here, my friend.
>>>You're changing the subject. Your claim was that theologians were just talking about the same old stuff. They demonstrably aren't. Whether or not there has been "progress" is another matter. I think there has been - & theological progress isn't to be measured by whether or not scientists are talking about it. There are theological - & anti-theological - influences on science but they generally are indirect.
In addition, you're ignoring the fact that there has been a significant number of scientists working in theology, & they do talk about what's happening in the science-religion field.<<<
GRM: No, I am not changing the subject. I am pointing out that your claim was false. That isn't changing the subject. You were the one who claimed progress, but progress should have some impact around the water coolers at the scientific offices. It doesn't. As to scientists working in theology, shoot, Hugh Miller was one of those, so they have always been with us.
>>>You skipped the paragraph in which I explained clearly why nothing miraculous need be involved in reprorting a miraculous event, the issue that motivated my comment above.<<<
GRM: Tonight it is too late for me to go back and re read the old post. I will try to do it in the next round to see what you think I missed. I cut out what I didn't see as important.
>>>& you have missed the point of my application of kenosis. In fact, I have to wonder if you really pay any attention to the way I actually try to use my basic assumption to deal with things like divine action, evolution &c. What we do know & what the skeptic can't deny - unless he/she is perhaps a type of post-modernist I have little time for - is that what goes on in the world conforms, with the possible exception of very rare events - to rational laws. This indicates that if God is acting he limits that action to be in accord with such laws. Kenosis provides an explanation of why God would so limit action.<<<
GRM: But, pure naturalism also explains why God would so limit his actions--because there isn't one! How do you tell that your hypothesis (that God limits his action) from the hypothesis that there is NO God? I see no way to do it except in your own mind. Indeed, if you didn't assume that there was a God, (and thus assume from the start that you are right) you couldn't explain why God limits his actions.
I had written:>>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?<<<
George replied:
>>>We don't know. I never said we did. & that's why I've tried to say consistently that it is not necessary in the case of any particular "miraculous" (in the sense that we "marvel" at it) event to claim that it is completely beyond the capacity of natural processes with divine cooperation.<<<
GRM: OK, so we don't know when God creates a miracle and when he works through the capaciites of the individual. Fine. Maybe God worked through the capacities of an individual to merely write a fictional story about a guy named Jesus who rose from the dead, but actually the guy never lived because God likes to work through the capacities of individuals. It is most assuredly within the capacities of an individual human to write a fictional story. It is NOT within the capacities of an individual to raise the dead. Maybe this God took the easy path--just tell them a tall tale and they will believe it, rather than doing the hard thing and coming to earth himself to be crucified.?
A note to any reader who is still with us (assuming there are any), don't ever think I think like a YEC. I think more like an atheist. I have had too many interactions with atheist friends and know how their arguments go and that is what I am giving here.>{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.
>>>Apparently after all this discussion you don't see my point about kenosis & accomodation. Kenosis means that God the Son limits himself in the Incarnation. <<<<
GRM: Bull roar. This is proof you didn't pay attention to what I wrote in that ciruclarity section. I wrote:
>>>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.
GRM: That part about 'accommodated himself to the human condition is EXACTLY what you are saying about the limitation of himself as a human. Maybe you should read my stuff a bit more carefully.
>>>Accomodation means that God the Holy Spirit limits himself in the inspiration of scripture. If kenosis in the Incarnation reveals an aspect of the divine character then we should expect to see that aspect in other divine works, such as inspiration.<<<
GRM: And my point with those limitations means that God doesn't communicate to us. He allows his message to be messed up. Remember the noisy channel theorem.
>>>>1st, denying concordism doesnt mean denying that there's any historical data.<<<
GRM: This is 1984 doublespeak. If there is historical data, then that data CONCORDS to reality and that is concordism. If there isn't any, it doesn't CONCORD.
>>> One can believe that there are bits of tradition about mesopotamian floods in the biblical flood story without claiming that it's a rough history of an actual flood in which the ark actually got up to Ararat &c. (I.e., I am not arguing for a mesopotamian flood in the sense that the Hills, e.g., are.) & 2d, I at least (I won't speak for others) certainly think there are historical narratives in the Bible. So you've got a real straw man here. <<<
GRM: I don't have a strawman with you when it comes to Genesis 1-11. To claim otherwise may be a case of you changing the subject.
>>>A good question. I don't see how a certain amount of subjectivity is avoidable in assessing such claims. If you read the accounts of the pilgrimmages of people like Justin Martyr, Augustine or C.S. Lewis you see them exploring different philosophies & religions & finally concluding that Christianity provides the deepest truth about their lives & the world. But could any of them argue that this was a purely objective decision? <<<<
GRM: I will agree that one must subjectively believe that sense data tell us something real. If not, then there is no truth whatsoever. years ago I played a computer game that had a virtual world in it. I got stuck at that point because I didn't realize I had moved from the 'real' world of the game in to the game's virutal reality. So, yes, if one gets past that point, then one can avoid subjectivity by demanding that the account tell them something verifiable against empiricism. That is how you avoid total subjectivism.
>>>But having said that, not just any hand-waving argument suffices. I've tried to explain in various places (most thoroughly in The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross how a theology of the cross leads to a theological understanding of various aspects of the world. In the Covalence article I tried to show briefly how it undergirds the idea of accomodation. You can argue with the way I've constructed those arguments - & I wish people really would focus on the arguments & not boogeymen - so that they could be improved. But they are real arguments. & the same kind of things would have to be demanded of people of other faiths. A Muslim can't just say "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the prophet of God and therefore we can understand why life came into being by evolution through natural selection." The details have to be filled in! <<<
GRM: And that is what I have been asking of you--fill in the details. Show me precisely where my view of your logical circle fails. Which statement in that circle is false?
I had written:
>>>"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.<<<
George replied:
>>>That might be true - if I started with Genesis. But I don't.<<<.
GRM:But you are still circular because you actually haven't addressed the issue I raised. I even asked for you to show me where my logical cirucl was wrong, but you decided not to do that. Too bad.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 10 2006 - 23:06:29 EDT