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

John said : *Coming to the knowledge of the Truth doesn't require any
theological or human reason based foundation, it is just recognizing and
responding to the inner witness of God and the supernatural manifestations
of the traits of God like love and* *compassion.*

Yes! I agree with you -- or rather you agree with me! You can't speak of
something like the inner witness of God without first having a theology.
So, if knowledge is properly rooted in God's revelation, including the
witness of the Holy Spirit in a person's life, then theology is prior to
human reason.

BTW, I'm not intending to accuse you of idolatry. I believe the idea that
human reason stands above God's revelation is an idolatrous idea. I'm
trying to critique the idea, not throw an ad hominem at you personally.

On Dec 2, 2007 4:56 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

> David,
>
>
>
> This is now the second time I have been accused of idolatry on this list.
> I think there are a lot of really defensive people here quick to point out
> idolatry in other people. Hmm…
>
>
>
> But as far as my epistemic foundation, no it is not human reason. As I
> said before it is the innate knowledge we have of moral truth akin to
> conscience. It is a more subjective knowing, not intellectual or reason
> based but a spiritual discernment. Mike has referenced this as a primordial
> spiritual instinct and I think that may be right. And like the example you
> have used before, it is like recognizing pornography¸ you can't describe it
> accurately but you know it when you see it.
>
>
>
> And as further proof, consider how Jesus led His followers to come to
> realize He was the Messiah. He told them to go and tell others of the signs
> that they had seen, the lame walk, the deaf hear, and the blind receive
> their sight. Coming to the knowledge of the Truth doesn't require any
> theological or human reason based foundation, it is just recognizing and
> responding to the inner witness of God and the supernatural manifestations
> of the traits of God like love and compassion.
>
>
>
> The Centurion at the cross is another good example. "Surely this man was
> the Son of God" is another non-theology and non-reason based conversion
> simply because he witnessed the forgiveness of Jesus to the thief on the
> cross with him and the sky turning black after His death. There is no other
> way to describe this other than spiritual instinct.
>
>
>
> So, as usual, I reject the faulty dilemma presented here between a human
> reason or theologically based epistemic foundation.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 02, 2007 12:40 PM
>
> *To:* John Walley
> *Cc:* Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution (was
> Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")
>
>
>
> John said: *For you to narrow the definition of "epistemic foundation" to
> reformation theology then are you saying that for 1500 years the church had
> foundation?*
>
> Of course not. The idea of "faith seeking understanding" dates to well
> before the Reformation and is present in scripture, particularly in the
> wisdom literature.
>
> John said: *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. *
>
> This is incoherent. From where do you get the notion of "spiritual
> discernment" if you don't *start* with theology? And no one said anything
> about "trumping" reason. The prior question is what we mean by "reason."
> What grounds "reason?"
>
> John said: *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. *
>
>
>
> No, I think it's just a way of weasling out of the big question. You are
> confusing a particular question of hermeneutics with a bigger question of
> theology.
>
>
>
> So, what is the ground of your epistemology? Is it human reason? If so,
> how do you know human reason is in itself an adequate basis for grounding
> ultimate truth claims? And if so, how do you escape the fact that such an
> epistmology makes God subject to human reason? Do you think human reason
> can encompass everything that "God" is? Do you see the obvious idolatry
> here?
>
>
>
> On Dec 1, 2007 11:34 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> 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 > 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] *On
> Behalf Of *mlucid@aol.com
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 2:52 PM
> *To: *dopderbeck@gmail.com
> *Cc:* 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>
>
>
>
> 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)
>
> 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> 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>
> 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>
> !
>
>
>
> 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 17:53:16 2007