Isn't the elephant in the living room here a comparison of the degree of
consensus in theologies as contrasted with that of scientific
understanding, if one is addressing without preconceptions the choice of
"epistemic foundation"?
JimA [Friend of ASA]
John Walley wrote:
> David,
>
>
>
> I have to agree with Bernie here. I think he has got you.
>
>
>
> For you to narrow the definition of "epistemic foundation" to
> reformation theology then are you saying that for 1500 years the
> church had foundation? Therein lies the problem of an ""epistemic
> foundation"." I think Mike is right to point out that there is a
> spiritual instinct for discerning truth that has to trump reason but I
> don't think this is it. The spiritual discernment instinct trumps
> theology as well.
>
>
>
> Also, granted science has its disagreements but "how old is the earth
> (YEC or OEC) according to your "reformed theology?" " is a classic.
> And that exactly nails the problem of approaching this debate with
> theological preconceptions.
>
>
>
> After having spent most of my life in bondage to this "epistemic
> foundation" I now think I would rather take my chances sorting out
> Big Bang, String Theory and CI rather than Reformed Theology,
> Mormonism, ken Ham and Benny Hinn.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:46 PM
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution (was
> Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")
>
>
>
> David Opderbeck said:
> "There's no Christian theology without the Bible, I would argue.
> Again, reformed theology, broadly speaking, is my bailiwick."
>
>
>
> Which "reformed theology"... a certain catechism or systematic
> theology textbook author? I'm wondering about the specific "rock" or
> foundation you are referring to. Yes, there is some general agreement
> on big things, and also some disagreement on big things. Have you
> ever switched religions or theology? I have. But I haven't really
> ever switched from the scientific method. Still, as Francis Collins
> says, science and religion answer two very different questions, and
> both are needed... although I do see some overlap (such as history,
> when regarding the question of whether Adam was a real person or
> not). Maybe people give more credence to science than theology,
> because science is more basically and generally "received," whereas
> theology has so many nuances and no two people seem to agree exactly
> (unlike science).
>
>
>
> For example, how old is the earth (YEC or OEC) according to your
> "reformed theology?" I don't think there's a clear answer, is there?
> And if it can't answer something as general and basic as that, what
> kind of foundation for knowledge is it? If you say it is a young
> earth, I'd ask "aren't there any OEC with your "reformed theology?"
> Vice-versa if you answer that the earth is old.
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 3:51 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution (was
> Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")
>
>
>
> What is an "epistemic foundation" based on God? Is that the Catholic,
> Protestant, Mormon, or Benny Hinn (etc.) theology?
>
>
>
> I'm not too up on Mormonism, but I'm pretty sure all the diverse
> traditions you mention would find some common ground here. But it is
> most consistent with reformed theology, broadly speaking.
>
> Who's theology, specifically, are you talking about (Catholic,
> Protestant, Benny Hinn, etc.)? If only God would have written a
> theology textbook (or tutorial or catechism) instead of the Bible...
>
>
>
> There's no Christian theology without the Bible, I would argue.
> Again, reformed theology, broadly speaking, is my bailiwick.
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2007 6:36 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com
> <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:
>
> "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."
>
>
>
> What is an "epistemic foundation" based on God? Is that the Catholic,
> Protestant, Mormon, or Benny Hinn (etc.) theology?
>
>
>
> "Why is theology secondary to the "reductionist program?"
>
>
>
> Who's theology, specifically, are you talking about (Catholic,
> Protestant, Benny Hinn, etc.)? If only God would have written a
> theology textbook (or tutorial or catechism) instead of the Bible...
> that would help, wouldn't it? But He didn't, so there must be a
> reason why.
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>] On Behalf Of mlucid@aol.com
> <mailto:mlucid@aol.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 2:52 PM
> To: dopderbeck@gmail.com <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>
>
> Subject: Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution (was
> Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")
>
>
>
>
>
> From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>>
>
>
>
> 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?
>
> It will be after we develop the appropriate recognition of the role of
> instinct as pervasive, and in fact, presumptive of all rational
> capability. If you recognize the conditioned response as the
> irreducible element of symbolism upon which all human reasoning is
> enabled and that a neurological host instinct is the indispensable
> nucleus around which each and every conditioned response condenses
> (gotta drool for food before you can drool for a bell), then you can
> establish within our modern paradigm the mechanics of how faith (in
> our instinct) precedes knowledge (of the world).
>
> (www.thegodofreason.com <http://www.thegodofreason.com/>)
>
> It was instinctive neurology (intuition) that led Einstein think
> beyond the rational limitation that time is the same for all objects
> (it's not) more than it was his rational grasp of either Newton's laws
> or Maxwell's equations. It is not difficult to show faith in this
> light as the absolute ultimate evolutionary product of our instinct
> that provides the ultimate context (purpose) for our rational powers.
> In other words, it is no coincidence that men presumed an infinitely
> wise infinitely potent transcendent Creator long before we began to
> suspect infinity might be an actual property of Creation. We will soon
> find that the structure of our instinct provides us the survival
> context of 300 million years of evolution from which our reason
> derives it's survival relevance, just like the conditioned response
> derives its survival relevance from its host instinct.
>
> -Mike (Friend of ASA)
>
>
> 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 <mailto: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 w ill 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 <mailto:rich.blinne@gmail.com>>
> To: David Opderbeck < dopderbeck@gmail.com <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>>
> Cc: Steve Martin < steven.dale.martin@gmail.com
> <mailto:steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>>; asa@calvin.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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>!
>
>
>
> size=2 width="100%" align=center>
>
> 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 Sun Dec 2 00:07:14 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 02 2007 - 00:07:14 EST