Re: [asa] God as Cause

* I disagree with the attempts to label all forms of
TE as materialistic, with the usually unanalyzed assumption that ID
(or YEC) is the Christian approach, and with the frequent absence of
Christianity from ID and YEC*.

Here, I agree with you completely.

On 1/11/07, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If I ask the question, "What is the genetic/paleontological/etc.
> evidence on
> the origin of humans?", then I should examine the physical evidence,
> regardless of theological or other ideas about the origin of humans. I can
> then consider how that answer meshes or clashes with theological or other
> answers. <<
>
> > This goes, I think, to another core problem, which is the classic rift
> > between empirical science and the humanities. My problem with this is
> that
> > I don't see why we should care what the "genetic/paleontological/etc.
> > evidence" is in itself. What we should care most about is what the
> truth
> > is.
>
> I see at least two reasons to care what the
> genetic/paleontological/etc. evidence is in itself. One is that
> someone may happen to be interested in such topics. Of course that
> doesn't mean that anyone else has to care, but if someone wants to
> find out what that evidence may be, it must be pursued honestly and
> not to promote an agenda, even if the agenda is correct.
> More importantly, if one is interested in the overall truth, it is
> necessary to make sure that the component information in your model is
> truthful. There almost certainly will be parts of that information
> that don't fit in well, but that does not justify making up
> information that fits better nor a priori dismissal (as opposed to
> considered and explained dismissal).
>
> > If the argument is that the best way to get at the truth is to first
> > completely segregate the theological / genetic / paleontological / etc.
> > evidence and then later to try to integrate those different strands of
> > evidence, I need to understand the justification for that epistemic
> claim,
> > and I also need to understand the justification for the underlying claim
> > that it's even possible to make such a segregation.
>
> No; the argument is that the best way to get at the truth is to
> investigate the evidence (including theological, etc.) regardless of
> whether it seems to point in the direction we want it to. One
> cannot strictly segregate doing science from metaphysical issues.
> However, one can do science irrespective of metaphysical
> considerations. I can do an experiment no matter what (or whether) I
> think philosophically about the process, and the results tend to be
> the same, although often different spins and/or misrepresentations may
> be seen in my report of the results if I am already committed to a
> particular result.
>
> Doing science entails certain metaphysical assumptions, including the
> idea that an external world exists, that it behaves in regular ways,
> that we can meaningfully observe it and infer patterns, and that this
> activity is worthwhile. Probably most scientists haven't thought
> about that, but they act as though those principles are true, and the
> generally successful results strongly suggests that those principles
> are true (though certainly not proving that they are exhaustive; the
> principles cannot be derived from within the framework they provide
> and also cannot address the question of whether beings or events
> outside their ken exist). Christianity provides a basis for those
> assumptions while asserting that they are far from exhaustive; atheism
> typically takes them as axioms.
>
> > the argument assumes, without demonstrating, that God's expressly
> creative
> > activity should look the same as his current "rest" from creative
> activity.
> > Whatever we make of the "days" of creation, the seventh day on which God
> > "rested" signals some sort of change in God's creative activity -- at
> least,
> > Jewish and Christian theology has always maintained that God's sabbath
> rest
> > is somehow meaningful with regard to God's relation to the creation. It
> > seems plausible to assert that nature did not necessarily follow the
> > "normal" pattern during the first six "days," and that the regularity of
> > nature in which God does not normally act outside of secondary causes
> > becomes fully established only after man is created and God "rests" on
> the
> > seventh day.
>
> I agree that some difference is to be expected (while incidentally
> noting that this argument causes problems for a young earth scenario
> because it hinges on the understanding of day 7 as ongoing, a view
> well justified by Hebrews). However, God's consistency (especially
> emphasized in, e.g., a Reformed context; less so in, e.g.,
> dispensationalist circles) argues for a general similarity in activity
> through all time, as does Jn. 5:17. Part of the problem is our idea
> of rest-we tend to think of comfortable naps rather than the fruitful
> labor that was the ideal for Eden and Canaan. There's also the
> problem of forgetting that God is just as much at work in natural
> processes as in supernatural ones, such that "God made" is assumed to
> mean "miraculously". [Calvin has some comment on this issue in
> reconciling the perceived definition of bara as creation ex nihlo with
> the earth bringing forth.] A key issue here is the intent and
> categories of Genesis 1. If you try to force the categories of
> organisms into a statement about the method of producing modern
> taxonomic divisions (e.g., every species/family/phylum/etc. is created
> separately), you are not only tangential to the primarily theological
> intent of the Bible but also you clash with the scientific evidence.
> (If you assert that "God worked in a special way at these points, but
> I don't know exactly how that would manifest itself in terms of
> scientific data", you are closer to the theological intent and not
> setting up a clash with science.) However, if you see it as a
> catalogue of the major categories of things-the heavens, the sea and
> sky, the land, stuff in the heavens, in the sea and sky, and on land,
> and finally humans as spiritual entities-the point is that God made
> them all and there are no more categories left to fill. Whether
> scientific data suggest that the making used secondary means or not in
> any given situation then becomes of minor theological importance,
> though obviously it is important for the practice of the science.
>
> Note on the theological intent of the Bible-The Bible does to varying
> degrees in different passages touch on several other issues, but the
> primary purpose is theological ("Scripture principally teaches what
> man is to believe concerning God and what duties God requires of
> him.") The primarily theological nature does not make, e.g., the
> historicity irrelevant, but it does mean that historical, scientific,
> etc. statements need to be understood within the context of their
> theological purpose and not as modern historical, scientific, etc.
> statements.
>
> I don't disagree that Plantinga correctly identifies problems with a
> materialistic viewpoint, or for that matter with approaches that apply
> some materialistic-like assumptions about constraints on God's
> abilities while not being fully materialistic (deism, process
> theology, etc.). I disagree with the attempts to label all forms of
> TE as materialistic, with the usually unanalyzed assumption that ID
> (or YEC) is the Christian approach, and with the frequent absence of
> Christianity from ID and YEC.
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.