Re: [asa] Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution (was Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")

Did I really overstate the amount of scientific consensus - at least in
a comparative sense? There is a global consensus of a great many science
findings, to the extent of having some of the behaviors of nature
distilled into virtually universally accepted "laws" (because of the
reliability of the natural behaviors they describe).

"Consensus" may not always be a valid barometer of "truth". But the lack
of "always-ness" does not really invalidate my point. Global consensus
about natural things functions as truth until something better comes
along to clarify or modify it. On the other hand, some 30,000 (some say)
identifiable Christian entities openly disagree on what comprises
orthodoxy (truth, as they see it). Some of these differences are pretty
fundamental, having to do with the nature of Christ, the nature of
Scripture, etc.

Moreover, "the Church" (presumably intended to mean the Christian
church) is not the only theology about, there being two other Abrahamic
faiths, and a number of other large people groups beside Christians who
differ in their understanding of how to seek and approach the Creator.

In (4), I think you make my point. Theological consensus may be subject
to change, but I think it's fair to say that theology as expressed in
church or denomination contexts struggles against change. That is the
nature of "traditions". Science is much more inclined to find open
questions irritating to the extent of seeking a globally acceptable
resolution, even if it takes generations or centuries to do so. The open
theology questions seem to drive wedges of dispute rather than inspire
consensus. If it only took 200 or 400 or 600 years to come to a
consensus with respect to how gravity acts, or light behaves
(acknowledging their incompleteness), how is theology doing in coming to
consensus on a global scale with respect to the Bible as a God-creation
or man-creation? I would even argue that theological scholars might
continue to work toward a hoped-for orthodoxy that would be more
universal, but I'm not sure that most regular church member have any
interest at all in reconciliations of denominational differences. Am I
wrong about that?

I hasten to add that I'm not trying to be at all hostile here, just
exploring some aspects of that "foundation" question.

JimA [Friend of ASA]

David Opderbeck wrote:

> A fair question, but a couple of observations:
>
> 1. we shouldn't overstate the amount of scientific "consensus" about
> many things
>
> 2. "consensus" isn't always a valid barometer of "truth." After all,
> most of the world rejects the claims of Christ.
>
> 3. the Church has maintained for 2000 years that "Jesus is Lord."
> That's pretty amazing for consensus over time. Nothing in science can
> match that in breadth or consistency. And this central affirmation is
> the root of Christian epistemology.
>
> 4. like theological consensus, scientific consensus is subject to
> change. Much of what is "consensus" in science today was unheard of
> only 200 years ago. And the same will be true 200 years from now.
>
> On Dec 2, 2007 12:07 AM, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net
> <mailto:jarmstro@qwest.net>> wrote:
>
> 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>
>> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:46 PM
>> 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")
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 <mailto: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 17:52:46 2007