Re: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens - Surrending the debate epistemologically by subjecting revealed knowledge to science

Hi John,

If Rom 1:20 is taken out of context, then maybe it is the antithesis.
However, in context, I do not think this is the case. Allan Harvey's
article on "Natural Theology or a Theology of Nature" at
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/sci-nature/Chapter4.pdf has an excellent,
accessible overview on this topic.

Thanks,

On 11/1/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
>
>
> Respectfully, I don't see how we can say that "there is no reason to
> expect that they can come to faith through that reflection" when tome that
> is the antithesis of the Rom 1:20 passage.
>
>
>
> God apparently expects them to come to faith through that reflection
> because if we accept the scripture as truth, then if they reject it they are
> without excuse.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Steve Martin
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:56 AM
> *To:* Jim Armstrong; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens - Surrending the debate
> epistemologically by subjecting revealed knowledge to science
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Jim,
>
>
>
> I see Romans 1:20 as saying that God is reflected in his creation
> (What has been made).
>
>
> I think this is true .. but for those of us who have put our faith in God
> through Christ, we see the reflection poorly, as through a glass darkly.
> For those who aren't even looking in the right mirror (ie. do not have a
> prior faith commitment), there is no reason to expect that they can come to
> faith through that reflection. This is my understanding of what George,
> Terry et al are saying - corrections welcome.
>
>
>
> For that reason, when a congregation sings about "an awsome God", most
> don't know even half the story! And yet, there is that remarkable and little
> understood quality of the aesthetic that allows even the most technically
> illiterate to be overwhelmed by a view of star strewn night sky, or the
> sweet smell of a baby. And there is often an accompanying stirring of the
> heart as well that speaks anew of the Author of those miracles. What
> providence. What love! And what travesty to suggest that any of this has
> anything remotely to do with idolatry.
>
>
>
>
> Agreed with all but the last sentence. Without the revelation of the
> incarnate God, it is very likely that natural theology will lead one into
> idolatry. Humanity has had a long history of religious inclination based
> on the worship of nature, or at least the worship of some form of the divine
> not remotely like the God revealed in Jesus Christ.
>
>
>
> thanks,
>
>
>
> On 10/31/07, *Jim Armstrong* <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> Ditto! There is so much value in the two-book perspective (though one may
> reasonably argue that it is really all a single book). God's Creation seems
> to reflect so much of the character of its creator as I have come to know
> it, the orderliness and constancy, its providence and fruitfulness
> (including as I understand it, life as we experience it), the extraordinary
> existence of awareness and creativity, and so on. But perhaps the crowning
> attribute is Creation's marvelous (in every sense) invitation to discovery.
> Promise-laden and life-enriching streams of curiosity and revelation
> converge in a providential context of language and conceptualization to not
> only invite us to explore and experience the so-called natural world in new
> ways, but also to explore and find paths to better and more personal
> encounter with the Author of Creation.
>
> To those of us who are privileged to have worked in some discipline(s)
> that embody these explorations, the progressive revelations encountered are
> at once profoundly humbling and exciting. The messages of love and
> restoration that dominates and suffuses the sacred writings are not only
> undimmed by these adventures of discovery and privilege, they are instead
> thereby adorned with new facets and indeed even new dimensions, unseen by
> any other means.
>
> For that reason, when a congregation sings about "an awsome God", most
> don't know even half the story! And yet, there is that remarkable and little
> understood quality of the aesthetic that allows even the most technically
> illiterate to be overwhelmed by a view of star strewn night sky, or the
> sweet smell of a baby. And there is often an accompanying stirring of the
> heart as well that speaks anew of the Author of those miracles. What
> providence. What love! And what travesty to suggest that any of this has
> anything remotely to do with idolatry.
>
> JimA [Friend of ASA]
>
>
>
> mlucid@aol.com wrote:
>
> It was I who brought up Romans 1:20 in the thread and I have to go with
> John
> on this one, George. I see Romans 1:20 as saying that God is reflected in
> his creation
> (What has been made).
>
> -Mike (Friend of ASA)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> To: 'George Murphy' <gmurphy@raex.com> <gmurphy@raex.com>; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:01 pm
> Subject: RE: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens - Surrending the debate
> epistemologically by subjecting revealed knowledge to science
>
> George,
>
>
>
> Sorry for the delay in the response but I wanted to get back to you on
> this. I remember your email on 23 October but then as now I am not sure I am
> in agreement with you on the interpretation of Rom 1:20. That is an
> interesting perspective but I don't see that as being consistent with the
> rest of scripture.
>
>
>
> There are many other scriptures that seem to imply this same "idolatry" of
> natural theology. For instance, "The fool has said in his heart there is no
> God", "The heavens declare the Glory of God" and God reveals His wrath
> against those " who suppress the truth in unrighteousness " etc., etc.. To
> me, these all make clear that God's perspective on the default conclusion of
> natural revelation is that it leads to Him. I don't know where you get this
> idolatry twist.
>
>
>
> This I would consider valid knowledge and truth and therefore impertinent
> to surrender that in any debate with atheists. I will concede that this is
> knowledge from a spiritual source ultimately but as the above scriptures
> indicate, all the evidence leads to it and the only way to avoid this
> conclusion is to willfully reject it and live in denial of it. But however,
> keep in mind that the source of truth or knowledge in no way disqualifies it
> from being so. For instance, a good example from the ID literature is the
> discovery of the benzene ring which was the result of a dream.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu?>]
> *On Behalf Of *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 28, 2007 4:15 PM
> *To:* John Walley; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens - Surrending the debate
> epistemologically by subjecting revealed knowledge to science
>
>
>
> John -
>
>
>
> In a post of 23 October I pointed out some of the problems with the type
> of appeal to Rom.1:20 that you keep trying to make. In the real world in
> which all people are sinful, one can speak of "knowledge" of God from
> creation only in an extremely limited sense since the result of trying to
> develop such a knowledge from observation of the world alone is inevitable
> idolatry. That is Paul's whole point in that passage & it's a serious
> mistake to try to make it into an argument for natural revelation.
>
>
>
> & in fact "the project of natural theology" to which Groothuis refers is
> simply the project of idolatry. An attempt to base the claim that "there is
> a God" on observations of nature may be just barely defensible, but any
> attempt to say who or what God (which is what a "theology" will do) will
> always produce some false god.
>
>
>
> Again, it's a quite different matter to look at the natural world in the
> light of God's historical revelation which is centered on Christ & to try to
> develop a "natural theology" as part of explicitly Christian theology. But
> that doesn't seem to be what either Groothuis or you are talking about.
>
>
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 28, 2007 3:50 AM
>
> *Subject:* [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens - Surrending the debate
> epistemologically by subjecting revealed knowledge to science
>
>
>
> Below is an excerpt of a blog posting of a review of a recent debate
> between Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens at King's College by
> philosopher and professor *Douglas Groothuis** *.
>
>
>
> I am curious to get any comments from the list on his observations because
> he charges Dinesh with selling the farm "epistemologically and
> apologetically" because he concedes faith beliefs are not valid knowledge
> and knowledge can only be what is empirically proven. This is very similar
> to the recent discussion on the philosophical foundation from Rom. 20 of God
> having revealed real knowledge (and not just faith) in his creation. And in
> fact from this scripture that says that those that reject this knowledge are
> "without excuse", it is clear God considers this revealed knowledge to be
> valid and binding and manifest to all and not some subjective idea that is
> subject to interpretation or the approval of science.
>
>
>
> I think Groothius may have articulated it here better than I but I think
> we are in agreement that as soon as we surrender this revealed "knowledge"
> as not being valid and instead replacing it with only "science" then we have
> already lost the debate. And this does appear to be the strategy of atheists
> and therefore the danger in siding with them too strongly in their
> marginalizing the arguments from ID.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2007/10/debate-christianity-and-atheism.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Debate: Christianity and Atheism *
>
> Dinesh D'Souza (author of *What's So Great About Christianity*) and
> Christopher Hitchens (author of *God is Not Great *) recently debated at
> King's College<http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/24/dsouza-and-hitchens-debate-christianity/>. I will not give a point by point commentary, but limit myself to three
> comments, the first of which is the most important.
>
> 1. At 1.26 D'Souza completely sells the farm epistemologically and
> apologetically--despite the many fine points he made throughout the debate.
> He claims that *his religious belief is not knowledge *. He does not *know
> * it to be true; he only *believes *it. In so doing, he seems to restrict
> knowledge to what is empirically verifiable. But there is no reason to do.
> We know many things apart from empirical evidence (such as basic moral
> claims). Moreover, we can infer the existence the supernatural from the
> natural (the project of natural theology; see *In Defense of Natural
> Theology*, which I co-edited and to which I contributed a chapter.)
> D'Souza goes on to say that while he leaps toward God, Hitchens leaps toward
> atheism. I groaned loudly to myself when I heard it (although my wife
> probably heard me). Many in the crowd applauded.
>
> This is tragic. We must enter the public square making *knowledge claims*,
> not mere faith claims that are allowable, just as allowable as theism or
> some other worldview. We need to try to out argue the opposition by
> marshalling the strongest possible arguments for Christianity and against
> atheism. In fact, D'Souza gave some strong arguments not adequately rebutted
> by Hitchens by the time he sold the farm. There was no need to do so; and in
> so doing, he sets a terrible example for Christian persuasion in the public
> realm (despite the virtues he exhibited in the debate).
>
> 2. The form of the debate was poor. Neither speaker has enough time for
> opening comments or for rebuttal. The supposed "cross examination" devolved
> into haranguing at time, with the moderator (Marvin O'laski) failing to
> intervene to keep order. Serious debates should have strict rules.
>
> 3. Both speakers issued cheap shots by insulting the other speaker in ways
> not required by their arguments. This may get applause, but makes no logical
> point.
>
> Apparently, D'Souza has come to a more mature Christian conviction
> recently. He is not known as a philosopher, but as a social critic and
> political writer. I never detected an overt Christian worldview in the
> several books I've read by him over the years. At that crucial time of 1:26
> this weakness showed. I have not yet finished his book, however. Perhaps
> I'll say more then.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000970>
> !
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Martin (CSCA)
> http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com
>

-- 
-- 
Steve Martin (CSCA)
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.