Re: [asa] truth with love award

Don, was Fred Hoyle the one who lamented something to the effect ----
the "big bang" theory is like scientists ascending a last series of
smaller peaks only to find theologians already sitting on the summit?
I don't know much about Hoyle, but it sounds like Mitton's book would be
a good place to learn.

Iain, from your post that followed this one, it sounds like Collins'
book has gotten at least some attention from hostile quarters.
Regarding the criticism you mentioned about Collins possibly succumbing
to the same gap shortcoming he warns against; it is true that that
argument has failed to impress determined atheist audiences. I've a
friend (who sounds a lot like the ranter you describe) who wanted me to
read a dissertation on the evolutionary origins of religious
manifestations and customs. The paper, while highly intellectual, was
full of caustic mockery of all religion and was saturated with the
unstated assumption that any positing of naturalistic explanation for
phenomena would automatically render religious views of the same as
primitive nonsense. My friend found that paper to be extremely
enlightening (he practically worships at the altar of Occam's razor) and
was hoping it would make a similar revolutionary impression on me. I
may agree with at least one part of the ranters objections, though.
Daniel Dennett's work (I'm not nominating him for "truth with love" but
nor do I castigate him as much as some might) convinced me to back away
from the "moral sensitivities" argument in that reasonable naturalistic
explanations could be surfacing regarding the emergence of ethics &
cooperation, societal mores, etc. I'm not saying that the explanations
offered were entirely convincing or successful, mind you. I'm just
saying that I wouldn't to lean too heavily on that argument as a
rational answer to atheism. Lewis' use of it did impress me at the
time as it apparently did Collin's as well, but I think the first half
of Lewis' appeal (futility of evolutionary explanation for morality) has
been answered to the satisfaction of the anti-religious crowd. (The
next part of his argument -- that a demonstration of a naturalistic
source of morality cannot constitute a personal imperative for the
future has NOT been even remotely answered in my opinion; so am I now
courting "God of the philosophical gaps"?).

Anyway -- I have never read Collins, though I may have indirectly
encountered him through one of Phillip Yancey's works (another author I
WOULD nominate for "truth with love" as he lovingly criticizes and
exhorts our Christian community from within) I had been impressed with
what I was hearing about Collins on this list before, but now having
seen a paragraph sample of Collins, I'm ready to go searching at the
public library. Thank you, Iain.

Vernon, are you still there? What do you make of all this talk of
"reaching out" to YECs? Since you seem to be a small minority among an
otherwise anti-"YEC" crowd, it is impressive that you stick around.
There is all too little cross-pollination between "birds of different
feather" since we generally flock only to the groups we feel like-minded
and comfortable with or choose to remain silent when we are not among
"our own". Even so, are you willing to help us brainstorm about ways
to help YECs move away from some of their more damaging habits? As
desirable as a reciprocation of humility would be from the non-YEC
crowd, I doubt that many think they have anything to gain from that
cause. In fact most of us are too busy "emerging" from it or distancing
ourselves from it (falling down that slippery slope of compromise you
would say). But it has been tainted.

Here is my challenge to you, Vernon: are there "common ground
factualities" that even many YECs would agree with today that serve as
example pointers to the dangers of pitting rigid Bible interpretation
against nature? For example here is one (admittedly beaten to
death): geocentricism becomes conflated with scriptural authority.
geocentricism is shown to be untrue. scriptural credibility takes a hit
in the eyes of those who have insisted on strict concordance of that
particular flavor. Why do most YECs refuse to recognize themselves in
this? Another example: men have one less rib than women (I
understand this still surfaces in recent times) it is easily shown by
direct observation to be untrue. scriptural credibility suffers in
the eyes of those who, through many levels of erroneous reasoning (or
lack thereof), thought that such must be scripturally supported. Are
there other obvious (beyond dispute) examples, perhaps more recent that
anybody can add? Surely YECs can see the damage done when rigid
interpretation is insisted upon as being equivalent with the Word of
God. I'm not advocating the other extreme of complete non-rigidity of
interpretation, though. Surely both extremes can be avoided. I think,
Vernon, that you attribute that opposite extreme to the non-YEC crowd.
And if such a fear were accurate, then I would agree that it is
well-warratned.

Iain Strachan wrote:

>
> Having nearly finished reading Francis S. Collins's new book "The
> language of God" I would have to nominate him in that category. His
> passion for science, and his self-confessed awe and wonder at the DNA
> molecule, and his clear expositions of all the spiritual and moral
> issues involved surely put him in the category of a truth seeker.
> Also, overwhelmingly in his book there is a sense of love and
> compassion and a continual sense of the Moral Law - his first
> encounter with this concept was when, as a young atheist, he read C.S.
> Lewis's "Mere Christianity", and realised that our inbuilt sense of
> right and wrong is a pointer towards the existence of a God who cares
> about us.
>
> I found that Collins's loving exhortation to the evangelical churches,
> of whom he considers himself a member, towards the dangers of Young
> Earth Creationism, to be an example to us all, given the often harsh
> derisiveness of the attacks on YECism shown on this list. This is
> part of what he has to say:
>
> A Plea for Reason
>
> Let me conclude this brief chapter [on Creationism], therefore with a
> loving entreaty to the evangelical Christian church, a body that I
> consider myself a part of, and that has done so much good in so many
> other ways to spread the good news of God's love and grace. As
> believers, you are right to hold fast to the concept of a God as
> Creator; you are right to hold fast to the truths of the Bible, you
> are right to hold fast to the conclusion that science offers no
> answers to the most pressing questions of human existence, and you are
> right to hold fast to the certainty that the claims of atheistic
> materialism must be steadfastly resisted. But those battles cannot be
> won by attaching your position to a flawed foundation. To continue to
> do so offers the opportunity for the opponents of faith (and there are
> many) to win a long series of easy victories.
>
> --------
>
> If that paragraph alone doesn't qualify for a "truth with love" award,
> then I don't know what does.
>
> I hope very much that Collins's book will be widely read, by
> Creationists and by atheists alike. Time will tell - the book has
> only just come out, and (as of yesterday) there were no reader reviews
> yet on Amazon.
>
> Iain
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 29 10:43:50 2006