Jim said: *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. *
True -- it is difficult to change theological traditions. But I'm not so
sure that scientific tradition changes so easily either -- I confess I'm a
bit of a Kuhnian. Don't forget that the paradigmatic example of the
difficulty of theological change when confronted with evidence from science
-- the Galileo affair -- was as much about the existing academic /
scientific tradition's reticence as it was about theological change. The
Copernican system overthrew Aristotelian physics, and this was bitterly
resisted by the academic tribe, to the point of manipulating the theological
tribe against Galileo. See also Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics" for
the bitter and rancorous debates over present day change in theoretical
physics.
I'm also not so sure, in the context of theology, that the stubborness of
traditions is entirely a bad thing. Innovation in theology isn't always
good or true. There is a sense in which the deposit of the faith is to be
passed down intact, even as it is continually contextualized and extended as
the Spirit witnesses to the truth in and through the Church in various times
and places in history. There is also a sense in which the dialectic of
tradition vs. innovation often produces brilliant growth. I hate tension,
but I'm coming to learn that God often uses tension to produce growth.
On Dec 2, 2007 5:53 PM, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
> 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> 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<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<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 18:01:45 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 02 2007 - 18:01:46 EST