Sorry, this was a copy mis-fire. Below is the second excerpt that my second
comment applied to.
Finally, and perhaps most important, all you get from natural theology is an
anonymous Designer, not the God revealed in Jesus. The Designer could just
as easily be the god of the Moonies.
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of John Walley
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 6:32 PM
To: 'Steve Martin'
Cc: 'Jim Armstrong'; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens - Surrending the debate
epistemologically by subjecting revealed knowledge to science
Steve,
Thanks for the reference and I agree that is an excellent article and indeed
a prescient recapitulation of this very thread.
I have the following comments about it though:
I find the following criticism very curious because that is what I see as
the antithesis to natural revelation mentioned earlier. To me, natural
revelation does not elevate science, it subordinates it. It does elevate
reason and spiritual discernment though which is crucial in engaging our
secular culture. Rejecting natural revelation does elevate science however.
"A third potential problem with natural theology is that it can be guilty of
elevating science above other ways of knowing, and elevating human reason
above revelation. Are we following the science-idolizing lead of the
Enlightenment by insisting that God should be scientifically detectable in
order to matter?"
Secondly, I find the following particularly weak. If God's revelation to man
was not sufficient and indeed intended to allow man to know Him then why do
the scriptures say that those that reject it are without excuse? Why didn't
God just skip the revelation and go straight to the "without excuse" part?
This is the equivalent of the temptation of Adam. If God didn't intend for
Adam not to sin, why didn't He just banish them to start?
A third potential problem with natural theology is that it can be guilty of
elevating science above other ways of knowing, and elevating human reason
above revelation. Are we following the science-idolizing lead of the
Enlightenment by insisting that God should be scientifically detectable in
order to matter?
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Steve Martin
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 5:39 PM
To: John Walley
Cc: Jim Armstrong; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com> <john_walley@yahoo.com>
To: 'George Murphy' <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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-an
d-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
<http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/24/dsouza-and-hitchens-debate-christia
nity/> at King's College . 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=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !
-- Steve Martin (CSCA) http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com <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.Received on Fri Nov 2 18:37:10 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 02 2007 - 18:37:10 EDT