John said: *If you would pardon me being a buttinski on your conversation,
my response to "why is theology not the foundation of our epistemology " is
simply because that is how we got a flat earth, a geocentric universe and
Ken Ham and some would even say ID.*
I'd suggest we didn't get those things from theology, or at least not from
good theology. We got those things from equally reductionistic models of
scripture.
On Nov 30, 2007 4:48 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David,
>
>
>
> If you would pardon me being a buttinski on your conversation, my response
> to "why is theology not the *foundation* of our epistemology " is simply
> because that is how we got a flat earth, a geocentric universe and Ken Ham
> and some would even say ID.
>
>
>
> I think that is one of the lessons of ID, we need to let science be the
> foundation of examining our natural world but I agree with Mike that it
> doesn't have to mean a "reason over faith" battle. Let the science reveal
> whatever it tells us and we go from there. We don't need to force fit it to
> anything to defend God. In fact, all these attempts to twist science are not
> about defending God or faith at all, its about defending a particular
> interpretation of the Bible.
>
>
>
> In contrast, one of the distinct contributions of RTB I feel is that they
> point out that Christianity is the only religion that makes truth claims
> that can survive modern day scientific scrutiny, so that makes science an
> ally of the Christian faith and the gospel message. And that is something
> that distinguishes Christianity from the other religions and completes the
> last step of the journey for those that come to theism from natural
> revelation. That is why we need to liberate science and use it
> synergistically with faith rather than trying to keep it in check like
> throughout most of our church history even up until today.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *David Opderbeck
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 4:33 PM
> *To:* philtill@aol.com
> *Cc:* rich.blinne@gmail.com; steven.dale.martin@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution (was
> Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")
>
>
>
> Phil said: *So we press on in the reductionist program as far as we can
> go, and we don't worry what lies beyond the limits of reductionism nor how
> it may affect the limits of theology.*
>
>
>
> But this is what bothers me. Why is theology secondary to the
> "reductionist program?" Why is theology not *primary* to our epistemology
> in some sense? Indeed, as John Milbank contends (with strong adjuncts in
> the Reformed tradition), why is theology not the *foundation* of our
> epistemology? This is one of the broader things that bothers me about
> evangelicals and TE. It seems that a sort of positivistic reductionism
> governed by the heuristic of evolution is the unexamined epistemic
> foundation for the current version of this program, rather than God and His
> revelation in Christ, in the Word, and in the world.
>
> On Nov 30, 2007 3:42 PM, <philtill@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Also, I contend as I always have that Godel's proofs have given us an
> amazing insight into the limits of reductionism in physics. Reductionism
> sees physics as acting in the mode of a Turing machine that operates upon a
> finite set of axioms or initial conditions of reality. The goal of
> reductionism is to identify those initial conditions and to identify the
> physical laws that constitute the Turing machine. But a Turing machine
> operating upon a finite set of axioms is exactly where Godel's proof applies
> (assuming that the axioms are at least complex enough to produce an
> arithmetic, and indeed arithmetic does appear to be a part of nature since
> we can count electrons, for example).
>
> So, if the present course of scientific reductionism is working with a
> correct view of nature, then Godel's proof applies to nature. Note that I'm
> not saying it applies to our understanding of nature or to science, which is
> an epistemological question, but that it applies to nature directly, which
> is an ontological question. Nature itself cannot be complete and cannot
> ensure its own internal logical consistency -- its own being -- if it were
> the sort of thing that could comply with the reductionist program in physics
> all the way to the end. Hence, reductio ad absurdum, the reductionist
> program in physics cannot be ultimately successful. At some point prior to
> explaining everything, reductionism stops. There must be an infinite number
> of axioms required to describe nature, _and_ there must have been an
> uncountable number of computations performed outside of the Turing machine
> processes of physics in order to obtain a set of axioms that will be
> internally consistent. But this assumes something exists outside the Turing
> machine of nature to perform the computations, which cannot be treated by
> scientific reductionism.
>
> So if ultimate reductionism is not possible, then the whole process David
> outlines must break down at some point. *But we don't know what that
> point is.* So we press on in the reductionist program as far as we can
> go, and we don't worry what lies beyond the limits of reductionism nor how
> it may affect the limits of theology. We don't yet know what those limits
> are, and whatever lies beyond them will probably be outside the purview of
> science as long as we live in this universe, unless some alternative to
> reductionism can be devised, or unless we find some way to describe nature
> that does not operate as a Turing machine.
>
>
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> To: David Opderbeck < dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> Cc: Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 2:31 pm
> Subject: Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution (was Re:
> [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")
>
>
>
> On 11/29/07, *David Opderbeck* <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Steve said: *And even if Natural selection *may* have *some* explanatory
> power for levels above biology, I don't think that necessarily means we are
> being reductionist. *
>
> Yes, I agree, and I'm ok with that notion. But what I wonder is whether
> this is *really* being consistent in how TE's, at least evangelical TE's,
> approach the science. 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 don't think it is necessary to swallow the whole package. If you compare
> and constrast the TE's gap with ID's gap the one thing that sticks out is
> the TE's gap is immaterial and thus beyond the explanatory capabilities of
> science. It is possible to get reductionistic here like Descartes did who
> said the place where the soul and body merge is the Pineal Gland (because it
> formed a point and thus appealed to Descartes' reductionism.) But, I don't
> believe reductionism is necessary and given the anthropology found in
> Scripture if you find that you are being reductionistic that should be a
> warning sign that your variety of TE may be on the wrong track. To do so is
> to as the saying goes is a foolish consistency and is thus the hobgoblin of
> little minds.
>
>
>
> One other thing that differentiates the two gaps is one is an argument
> from silence while the other one is based on a positive statement of
> Scripture. Gaps are not per se the problem with ID but rather the argument
> from silence. We should oppose something merely because there are "gaps" --
> and I am afraid Collins does this while not seeing his own "gaps". If you
> believe in First Causes like evangelicals do, then there will be gaps. But,
> because there are also Second Causes some apparent gaps are not really so.
> If Scripture posits supernatural causation for something -- like it does for
> the creation of the human soul -- then you are more likely to be correct
> about your gap then if it does not.
>
>
>
> Rich Blinne (member ASA)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>
> !
>
>
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 30 17:40:41 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 17:40:41 EST