A couple of quick thoughts here...
David writes:
"> Utlimately knowledge is rooted in God. We know
> nothing except through God's
> revelation, whether in scripture or in the book of
> God's works (nature). . . evolutionary epistemology
seems to
> suggest that all human
> knowing is thoroughly conditioned by natural
> selection. It is a
> reductionist account of knowing, rooted in a
> reductionist account of mind,
> which in turn is rooted in a reductionist account of
> nature. In this
> reductionist account, where is there room for the
> Holy Spirit as an
> independent entity -- and not only as an independent
> entity, as a person of
> the triune Godhead from which reality and knowledge
> ultimately proceeds? It
> seems to me "evolution" is a package deal -- you
> can't elide its biological
> aspects from its social, behavioural, and mental
> aspects. "
I would suggest that you're somewhat contradictory
here (at least it seems to me if I understand you
right)...you grant that revelation from God can come
from the "book of God's work (nature)", but then you
go on to question how the Holy Spirit fits into the
natural process of evolution? I will grant you that
you cannot fully know God or more specifically, our
salvation in Christ, solely through the "book of
nature", but even if the entirety of our social,
behavioral, etc. being could be described via natural
processes (which I don't subscribe to), wouldn't this
still constitute Spirit guided revelation through
natural processes--a revelation that bears witness to
the ultimate source of "reality and knowledge"? In
other words, reductionist though it be, doesn't it
still reduce to the "Language of God" which is
divinely created and sustained? And then, as you say,
rooted in a "reality [that] has a purpose rooted in
God's will."
David also writes in a later email:
"Isn't the truly consistent view to swallow the whole
package? Maybe another way to put it is, why posit a
"gap" in evolution at the level of the human mind /
soul? Isn't that imposing an a priori theological
view, drawn from special revelation, onto the
science?"
I assume by "gap in evolution" you mean the endowment
of physical bodies with a spirit/soul that otherwise
could not have been come about through the "natural"
means of evolution--i.e. supernatural intervention
that would render a 100% reductionist viewpoint
invalid (for lack of a better phrase). I think you're
question about the imposition of a theological view on
science in this case is both right and wrong. Wrong,
in the sense that scientifically, I think it is valid
to say that there is a "gap" in evolution in the
body/soul problem simply because science cannot yet
explain, by evolutionary or any other process that I
am aware of, how exactly a "soul" (consciousness,
etc.) can emerge from basic biophysical processes
(though it definitely can speak to how this
characteristic is shaped over time). There literally
IS a gap in our current knowledge. You're right
though, in the sense that if one concludes that this
"gap" can only be explained by direct divine
intervention, then this indeed is the imposition of a
theological view. Only time will tell if this
imposition is justified or not; but in the meantime, I
see nothing wrong scientifically or theologically with
holding this point of view.
From my own point of view, I am highly skeptical that
science will ever be able to explain how a)something
comes from nothing, b)life comes from lifelessness,
and c)how sentience (or soul, if you prefer) comes
from non-sentience. I see these transitions as
fundamentally different than any other problems
science tries to answer, because they are changes in
"type" if you will, rather than changes in "degree" or
"form". In other words, we know of no fundamental
property of energy or matter that would say that a
bunch of atoms joined together in a certain way would
suddenly become self-aware and interested in
preserving itself in that particular form; this is in
contrast to other changes such as from matter to
energy, which we know is derived from the fact that
ultimately matter is made up of energetic particles.
The answer that sentience emerges from the "complexity
of the human brain" seems to me to be a lot of
hand-waving trying to gloss over the simple truth
that: we don't know. Perhaps one day, this viewpoint
will be proven wrong, and we will discover some
fundamental thing in nature that can explain these 3
transitions; but again, even if this "reductionist"
viewpoint turns out to be true, what is it that we are
reducing to? A set of rational laws--rationality which
would seem to imply a rational Being/Creator who's
Mind is intimately reflected throughout all of
creation.
Anyway, I best be off!
In Christ,
Christine
--- David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve said: *Evangelicals who believe the bible is
> the only book we need,
> and who think there is no such thing as scriptural
> interpretation because
> "the truth is plain" have, IMHO, a very limited and
> dangerous view of divine
> revelation. *
>
> Yes I agree -- and I think most evangelicals who
> think about such things
> seriously would agree as well. (Yes, I know, many
> folks in the pews, many
> YEC leaders, and many populist fundamentalist
> leaders would not agree. But
> most serious "evangelicals" would.)
>
> Here's a thumbnail of the issue I see concerning
> Christian epistemology and
> evolution, at least from my reformed-ish evangelical
> perspective.
> Utlimately knowledge is rooted in God. We know
> nothing except through God's
> revelation, whether in scripture or in the book of
> God's works (nature).
> Moreover, knowledge of our sinfulness and of God
> himself only truly comes
> through the Holy Spirit. Natural theology gives us
> an inkling that there is
> a God, but true knowledge of God only comes through
> his Word and Spirit.
> Further, only a person who has the Holy Spirit is
> truly free to begin to see
> reality as it really is -- that reality has a
> purpose rooted in God's will.
>
> In contrast, evolutionary epistemology seems to
> suggest that all human
> knowing is thoroughly conditioned by natural
> selection. It is a
> reductionist account of knowing, rooted in a
> reductionist account of mind,
> which in turn is rooted in a reductionist account of
> nature. In this
> reductionist account, where is there room for the
> Holy Spirit as an
> independent entity -- and not only as an independent
> entity, as a person of
> the triune Godhead from which reality and knowledge
> ultimately proceeds? It
> seems to me "evolution" is a package deal -- you
> can't elide its biological
> aspects from its social, behavioural, and mental
> aspects. I'm not sure
> evangelicals who slide over to TE really appreciate
> that problem.
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2007 5:15 PM, Steve Martin
> <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > > I'm particularly interested in reactions from
> fellow evangelicals here,
> > > especially those who've just recently migrated
> to TE.
> > >
> > That pretty much describes myself so here are my
> brief personal answers -
> > in the reverse order you asked them:
> >
> > > In short: does a TE position require
> evangelicals primarily to rethink
> > > how they understand some parts of the Bible, as
> Collins, Falk and Lamerauex
> > > seem to suggest, or does a consistent TE
> position really require a complete
> > > revisioning / rejection of evangelical theology?
> > >
> > I think revision (definitely not rejection) might
> be the right word.
> > Maybe an even better word is reforming. This (I
> think) as a good thing;
> > our theology should be constantly reforming. I am
> interested in the way
> > George phrased it – that science should be a goad
> to theology. Still trying
> > to formulate in my own mind how the relationship
> should work the other way
> > (good theology provides a context for science?).
> >
> > > -- soteriology:
> > > --- does a TE perspective suggest
> universalism, or is it
> > > compatible with exclusivism (or evangelical
> variants thereof, including
> > > inclusivism and accessiblism)
> > > --- does a TE perspective suggest a
> non-substitutionary view
> > > of the atonement
> > >
> > I don't think biological evolution really adds
> much to this discussion.
> > On the other hand, I suspect universalism is going
> to be more of a hot topic
> > within Evangelicalism in the next 20 or 30 years.
> However, biological
> > evolution seems tangential to the discussion from
> my perspective.
> >
> > > -- eschatology: is the final state the
> completion of an evolutionary
> > > process, or a restoration from a fallen state
> > >
> > There are definitely some opportunities for
> rethinking here. But given
> > that Jesus basically told us not to worry about
> the details, I don't see
> > much of a "threat" here. Ok, for premil
> dispensationalism, there probably
> > is a threat. If TE is a helpful tool for moving
> away from this position, I
> > consider that great progress. (And speaking of
> eschatology and
> > opportunities for rethinking, it would be really
> nice if there was some good
> > Evangelical science fiction – no, no, Left Behind
> stuff doesn't count. I'm
> > thinking along the lines of good Mormon Science
> Fiction – eg. Orson Scott
> > Card).
> >
> > > -- epistemology: how does accepting the
> conclusions of science
> > > concerning evolution affect our view of
> knowledge, particularly the place
> > > and authority of divine revelation in the
> process of human knowing
> > >
> > Evangelicals who believe the bible is the only
> book we need, and who think
> > there is no such thing as scriptural
> interpretation because "the truth is
> > plain" have, IMHO, a very limited and dangerous
> view of divine revelation.
> > Again, if biological evolution can be the tool to
> goad them out of this view
> > that too is progress I believe.
> >
> > > -- harmitology: how does TE relate to the
> doctrine of sin, particularly
> > > original sin and the fall
> > >
> > This to me is definitely troublesome. I honestly
> believe all the other
> > issues above are either easily reconcilable, or
> are tangential to the
> > implications of biological evolution. The
> implications of evolution for how
> > we think about sin and the Fall are not. I've
> read a bunch of the same
> > stuff you have, but none of it really fits for me.
> I suspect that I may
> > never have an answer that fits.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > On 11/29/07, David Opderbeck
> <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks George for this clear response below.
> Without impugning it, I
> > > want to highlight some theological tensions with
> theistic evolution that
> > > evangelicals attracted to the idea don't seem to
> think through. I'm
> > > particularly interested in reactions from fellow
> evangelicals here,
> > > especially those who've just recently migrated
> to TE.
> > >
> > > In popular evangelical books and materials about
> TE, such as Francis
> > > Collins and Darrel Falk's books and Denis
> Lamareux's website materials, the
> > > primary theological issue mentioned is the
> doctrine of scripture and the
> > > interpretation of Gen. 1-11. This issue is
> usually quickly dismissed with
> > > references to "allegory" or "accommodation."
> Even those treatments, IMHO,
> > > are unfortunately superficial, but I think here
> there is the possibility of
> > > more serious and sustained work on this within
> the broad context of
> > > evangelical theology.
> > >
> > > But the questions of scriptural interpretation
> and hermeneutic seem like
> > > a drop in the bucket compared to these other
> nodes of tension:
>
=== message truncated ===
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:15:55 -0800 (PST)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 29 2007 - 23:17:21 EST