Interesting points. I would simply point out that it is perfectly accurate, both biblically and theologically, to use a personal pronoun to refer to a personal God.
Perfectly true, Kirk. And I realize that my pronouncements can sound disrespectful to long
held, unshakable truths. We use the masculine pronoun for God out of patriarchal respect.
The Bible uses He, Him, and HIs and Who and all manner of equivalent pronouncement in perfect
harmony with its vast context. My personal observations are strictly limited to the very narrow vein
of this particular thread in the science/religion debate, and not as any kind of independent truth
about how Christians might refer to their Creator.
-Mike (Friend of ASA)
-----Original Message-----
From: Kirk Bertsche <Bertsche@aol.com>
To: mlucid@aol.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:20 am
Subject: Re: [asa] Signing off this thread - Random and natural vs intelligence
Interesting points. I would simply point out that it is perfectly accurate, both biblically and theologically, to use a personal pronoun to refer to a personal God.
Kirk
On Nov 9, 2007, at 8:25 AM, mlucid@aol.com wrote:
Then who is the designer to which RTB refers? Jesus? Jesus as the Son
of God is the only "who" to whom humans can accurately attribute such a
pronoun. Oddly enough, when we say "who" about God the Father we
anthropomorphize God's transcendence in a way that belittles the issue
of the Designer specifically as well as almost every other issue that involves
the the relationship between science and religion.
The difference between God the transcendent Designer of the infinite universe
and God the Father of the Trinity should be as different in the modern mind as
the Trinity is from Yahweh. We have a greater perspective than humans of the
past had. We need to use that (rational, scientific) perspective to elevate by
default our instinctive presumptions about what gets transcended and what is
doing the transcending. (It ain't God that's the difference here. It's us)
God is more than any of us think. It is the limits we decide to assign to God that
we are arguing about, here, when we should be agreeing on our collective inability to
determine such limits. It's like one child arguing that his dad can beat up the other child's
dad when the other child has no father at home. The resulting tragically misdirected
stress is eliminated if we try and lift ourselves up to the perspective of the privileged
child's father and ask ourselves what he would say to the fatherless kid.
-Mike (Friend of ASA.)
-----Original Message-----
From: gordon brown <gbrown@Colorado.EDU>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:57 pm
Subject: RE: [asa] Signing off this thread - Random and natural vs intelligence
RTB is very forthright in saying who the Designer is.
Gordon Brown (ASA member)
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, John Walley wrote:
>
>
> I'm still signed off but you raised an interesting point worthy of comment.
>
> Curiously, RTB has always been on the other side of ID and years ago
> publicly called it "not science" and "not testable" and said they were
> "dishonest about their motives" etc, and other such unflattering comments.
> That really raised a row in the RTB base as well as most of them considered
> themselves and RTB firmly in the ID camp. I met Bill Dembski while this
> rivalry was going on and we discussed it and he was really taken aback and
> visibly shaken by their comments.
>
> RTB's angle was to differentiate themselves from ID by promoting a truly
> testable and therefore scientific model that would supposedly be allowed in
> the schools. A small oversight of this plan was that it depended on
> theological arguments and the bible to prove its testability.
>
> It sort of resonates in the church but I told them years ago this seemed a
> little naïve to think that Eugenie Scott and the NCSE would be swayed by
> this definition of science. The last book by Dr. Ross was "Creation As
> Science" which was along this theme.
>
> Although I think it is a stretch to expect to restore theistic assumptions
> back to the definition of science in our secular culture, I do think though
> that from within a Christian worldview, a "testable" creation model is a
> rational way of approaching the debate and synthesizing all the data, and
> now that I think about it, I would probably have to admit that has
> subconsciously shaped my view that has come out in this thread.
>
> I guess now that it is somewhat ironic that I am perceived to be defending
> ID when the source of my philosophical foundation is opposed to it as Pim is
> pointing out here. The distinction is that as opposed to most on this list,
> the basic arguments of ID such as the icons, the design inference, anthropic
> principle etc, are not opposed by RTB but only ID's claims to it being
> science.
>
> That is basically my position as well and the source of my frustration on
> this list. I concede now that ID technically isn’t science like RTB rightly
> points out, but even though they may not be testable, these observations
> that ID contributed still appear to be valid to me.
>
> And lastly, I didn’t call evolution a prevailing atheistic viewpoint. In
> fact, on the contrary I told you I could accept evolution, even of the
> unqualified Darwinian stripe, which just so happens to comport nicely with
> the "prevailing atheistic viewpoint", but that was unsatisfactory to me
> because I don't think it is the best interpretation of the data.
>
> Further I contend it not the most honest theological position either, but it
> is safe and doesn’t rile up the atheist mafia, so unfortunately that carries
> the day in the scientific establishment and trumps honesty.
>
> When we are defending the plausibility of multiverses over the generic
> design inference of creation then that is a dead giveaway that we all lost
> all scientific and spiritual objectivity and credibility.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
>
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
=
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.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 9 16:40:35 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 09 2007 - 16:40:35 EST