You said that not all aspects of nature are the subject matter of
science, and gave the example of conscience as one of these natural
aspects, yet the conscience is under investigation by scientists. You
may not agree with their approach to this investigation, but the fact
remains that it is being investigated. I would propose that everything
"natural" is being studied by scientists.
________________________________
From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 10:47 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic
Evolution (was Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")
Consciousness is an example of something that is not the subject matter
of science. Of course, a scientist qua human being can study
consciousness but he is not studying consciousness as a scientist qua
scientist but as a human being that is detecting consciousness and not
using data collected by experimental apparatuses normally used by
scientists to detect consciousness. This is a bit like "love" that is
not in the subject matter of science since there is no devices that can
"detect" love expect a human being---I am excluding pets, etc.
Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 12:22 PM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic
Evolution (was Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")
"Note that not all aspects of Nature are in the subject matter of
science and so one has to be selective in the data that one uses."
What do you mean? Please provide an example of some aspect of nature not
being the subject matter of science. I think I strongly disagree.
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 11:20 AM
To: philtill@aol.com; dopderbeck@gmail.com; jarmstro@qwest.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic
Evolution (was Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")
Theology as the study of God, man reaching for God, is indeed very
broad. However, when it comes to God reaching man, then such study is
truly limited. Christianity is in the latter category and the Bible is
analogous to Nature and one has to settle on the "theory" that explains
the most consistent with the least suppositions, both in the study of
Nature and the Bible. Note that not all aspects of Nature are in the
subject matter of science and so one has to be selective in the data
that one uses. Similarly, one has to first decide what Books are in the
Bible and then proceed from there. Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of philtill@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 1:36 PM
To: dopderbeck@gmail.com; jarmstro@qwest.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic
Evolution (was Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")
Another thought, which I've been itching to share on this topic: We are
using double standards when we point out the lack of consensus in
theology compared to the strong consensus in science. To large degree,
that is because we have defined "science" narrowly to include only what
we know to be correct. But we are defining "theology" to be as broad as
possible, including (as in John's post) Mormonism, Benny Hinn, etc. If
we were to use the same standard, then we should also include within
"science" the YEC's, the flat-earthers, the Platonists of centuries gone
by, the UFOlogists, the paranormal researchers, and so on. Then we see
that there is not so much consensus in "science" any more. In other
words, the "consensus" was kept good in one case by including only that
people with whom we agree, but in the other case the lack of consensus
was artificially inflated by including everyone whom we know to be
obviously wrong.
Or, to argue it the other way, we could make "theology" as restrictive
as we make science and only include the ones with whom we agree, who are
using good scholarship when they work with the primary data found in
God's revelations. Oila! Now theology has great consensus! The
differences between Wesleyan, Reformed, Roman Catholic and Orthodox are
not as great as their core similarities (I dare say), and their
differences are much less than the differences between the paranormal
researchers and the reductionistic materialists.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
To: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 1:14 pm
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic
Evolution (was Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")
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] 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 <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 < 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
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?nci
d=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?nci
d=aolcmp00050000000003> !
<hr 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?nci
d=aolcmp00050000000003> !
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 3 15:10:44 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 03 2007 - 15:10:44 EST