Re: [asa] Of motes and beams

Vernon -

Starting from the end:

1) Your previous post implied (I use the word in the strict sense) that if
biblical texts were "stories" then they would be "untrue." The example of
Jesus' parables shows this claim to be false. Surely you know that reductio
ad absurdum is a legitimate type of argument.

2) You yourself agree that MN has had a great deal of success in
understanding the world. That is all that is needed in order for it to be a
useful working hypothesis. It is, of course, essential for it to be
distinguished from metaphysical naturalism.

Of course scientists don't follow some official list of rules, one of which
is "methodological naturalism." In fact many of them aren't even familiar
with the term. They just look for natural explanations for phenomena -
that's what's meant by doing science. When Rutherford's students found that
some alpha particles were scattered backwards from the gold foil on which
they were incident he was tremendously surprised because it was contrary to
the understanding people then had of atoms. So did he say "Maybe there's
some supernatural force intervening"? Of course not. He looked for an
explanation in terms of natural processes & found it.
That's simply the way science works.

So your claims are indeed demonstrably false. & if you don't see this it
must be because in this matter you are invincibly ignorant. (& please note
that that is not intended as an insult. It's a technical term in
theology.)

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Of motes and beams

> George,
> Were you never surprised - puzzled, even - when you first encountered the
> phrase "...evil spirit _from the Lord_..." (1Sam.16:14, 19:9)? One would
> suppose it to have been sufficient for the writer to say simply, "An evil
> spirit troubled Saul". But, clearly, he was inspired to say more. Is
> there not a whiff of profound teaching here? Linking these statements with
> Job 1:6-12 and Job 2:1-6 we have a surprising but coherent explanation, I
> suggest, of things as they really are: Satan - enemy of our souls, the
> dark petitioner; God - the Omnipotent, Omniscient and All-Wise arbiter.
>
> Would you not agree, therefore, that these recorded 'minutes' of the
> meetings between God and Satan must, logically, be endorsed by the
> Christian? And would you not also agree that these accounts establish a
> pattern that must have been repeated interminably over the centuries, and
> even as we now communicate - its prime aim being the controlled outworking
> of God's ultimate purposes?
>
> You said (in part), "The fact that investigation based upon MN has a great
>> deal of success in understanding important aspects of human activity
>> shows that it is a very good working hypothesis...".
>
> Yes, but as I hope you would now agree, that perception exists simply by
> _God's grace_. It would be foolish to believe that it always _must_ be so
> (or even that it always _has been_ so!). For the Christian, MN can never
> be a dependable working hypothesis.
>
> You go on to say, "... both your claims are demonstrably false." Please
> explain; I'm not aware that you've demonstrated any such thing.
>
> Let me close with some advice from C.S.Lewis: "Do not attempt to water
> Christianity down. There must be no pretence that you can have it with the
> Supernatural left out. So far as I can see Christianity is precisely the
> one religion from which the miraculous cannot be separated. You must
> frankly argue for supernaturalism from the very outset." (Christian
> Apologetics)
>
> Shalom,
>
> Vernon
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
> To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; "Don Nield"
> <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Of motes and beams
>
>
>> Vernon -
>>
>> 1) Jesus told many stories. They are all true in the important sense
>> that they convey truth about the kingdom of God &c. Whether or not they
>> are true in the sense of being accurate historical reports is utterly
>> irrelevant. No serious Christian can dismiss stories as necessarily
>> untrue.
>>
>> 2) Whether or not human activity is "immune" from supernatural
>> interference is not the question. The fact that investigation based upon
>> MN has a great deal of success in understanding important aspects of
>> human activity shows that it is a very good working hypothesis & that
>> supernatural interference (to be distinguished, of course, from God's
>> concurrence with natural processes) is the exception - & in fact a quite
>> rare exception.
>>
>> I.e., both your claims are demostrably false. It would be nice to see
>> you admit it when you're wrong. People might take you more seriously if
>> you did.
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
>> To: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
>> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 4:03 PM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Of motes and beams
>>
>>
>>> Hi Don,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments. However, when you state that "The passages are
>>> theological stories about Satan.", does that mean you believe them to be
>>> untrue? If so, are you not surprised that God has allowed them to appear
>>> in His Revealed Word?
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if by these means it is intended that Christians be
>>> taught some of the fundamentals of life in the courts of heaven, you
>>> must surely agree that no form of human activity can be considered
>>> immune to supernatural interference. In such circumstances MN must cease
>>> to exist as a valid working hypothesis.
>>>
>>> Vernon
>>> www.otherbiblecode.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
>>> To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
>>> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 2:46 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] Of motes and beams
>>>
>>>
>>>> Vernon:
>>>> The passages are theological stories about Satan. They have nothing to
>>>> do with science.
>>>> All discussion about God is concerned with the supernatural. But that
>>>> has nothing to do with methodological naturalism.
>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Forum,
>>>>> I observe that many here are quick to pounce on any perceived
>>>>> weakness in the YEC position. But what of their own position as TEs?
>>>>> It appears to me that all are prepared to ignore some very fundamental
>>>>> Bible teaching. For example, concerning Job 1: 6-12, 2:1-6 and 1Kings
>>>>> 22:19-22, I am wondering what the purpose of these precious
>>>>> revelations might be if not to refute methodological naturalism -
>>>>> which all here appear to accept as a valid basis for practising
>>>>> science. Clearly, these extracts suggest that the _natural_ is, and
>>>>> always has been, open to supernatural activity - in God's wisdom, and
>>>>> at His discretion.
>>>>> It is interesting that Darwin's _goad_, Alfred Russell Wallace
>>>>> (undoubtedly, a reliable observer - though not a Christian) was
>>>>> convinced of the reality of the supernatural and wrote extensively of
>>>>> his first hand experiences of it. Many (including myself) would
>>>>> condemn his partiality for the seance - but his desire to learn,
>>>>> surely, cannot be faulted. On the other hand, our interest in the
>>>>> supernatural, as Christians, appears to begin and end with the
>>>>> resurrection. Is this really adequate for those who earnestly seek
>>>>> truth?
>>>>> Vernon
>>>>> www.otherbiblecode.com <http://www.otherbiblecode.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 13 08:12:59 2006