I agree with you that reason over revelation is idolatry.
And for me to speak of an inner witness of God then yes I have to have a
theology. But the Roman Centurion who came to the Truth did not necessarily
have to. And the masses to whom Jesus displayed His miracles didn’t have to
either. And good thing too because likely many of them were illiterate.
So my point was that neither theology or reason are our foundation. It is
this spiritual instinct/discernment component.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 5:52 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 : 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
<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] On
Behalf Of mlucid@aol.com
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 2:52 PM
To: dopderbeck@gmail.com <mailto: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 <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> 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 < <mailto:rich.blinne@gmail.com> 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
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 < <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
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=ao
lcmp00050000000003> !
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=ao
lcmp00050000000003> !
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 19:50:48 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 02 2007 - 19:50:48 EST