Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

I don't know what you mean by "without a rationale." Why is 1 Cor. 13's
definition of "love" not a rationale? Do you really argue that elephants
have notions of "evil" and "truth" that are anywhere near as developed as
those humans possess (and Michael, do you think your dog has such notions)?
Do you guys really argue that elephants and dogs have the sort of cultural
memory that supports notions of "hope" and "trust" as those terms are used
by the Apostle Paul?

I think a foundational evidence that elephants and dogs do not possess these
characteristics in the same kind as humans is the fact that there is no
Apostle Paul of the elephants and dogs. Nor is there an Aristotle, an
Augustine, a Shakespeare or a Ghandi of the elephants and dogs. Nor is
there a Hitler, Stalin or Mao of the elphants and dogs; and so on.

Elephants and labradors are not robots; they have emotions and reactions
that we can call "love". But if there is any content to theological
statements about "love" such as 1 Cor. 13, it is a "love" that is different
in kind than the sort of love we humans are capable of displaying.

And if 1 Cor. 13 isn't enough, I think the nail-in-the-coffin "rationale" is
the incarnation and the atonement. Christ became a human being, not an
elephant or a labrador, and the atonement frees us and only us (not even,
apparently, the fallen angels) to experience and live the kind of love
described in 1. Cor. 13.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 4:07 PM, j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:

> I understand your position here. But I simply cannot agree with it
> without a rationale, which you fail to give. OTOH, the book WHEN
> ELEPHANTS WEEP seems to give reasonable counter evidences.
>
> jb
>
> On 2/18/08, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't agree that creatures other than humans (except perhaps angels)
> can
> > "love." Yes, other creatures can exhibit altruism and selflessness, but
> > that alone isn't "love."
> >
> > Take, for example, the classic "love" passage of 1 Corinthians 13, and
> focus
> > on verses 12 and 13: <em>"Love does not delight in evil but rejoices
> with
> > the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always
> > perseveres."</em>
> >
> > These notions of "evil," "truth," "trust," "hope," and "persevere" are
> > foreign to creatures other than humans (and perhaps angels). They imply
> > moral and relational aspects that other creatures either do not possess
> at
> > all or possess in such vastly smaller amounts as to be different in kind
> > than those possessed by humans. I would suggest that they are involved
> in
> > the <em>imago dei</em> itself.
> >
> > In responst to Rich Blinne -- I am not suggesting that any of these
> means we
> > can "detect" God's design in nature by empirical means. An argument
> from
> > the <em>analogia entis</em> is inadequate without the <em>analogia
> > fidei</em>. BTW, a very nice discussion of the analogies of being and
> > faith, not really relating to ID, is here:
> > http://millinerd.com/2006/12/whos-afraid-of-analogia-entis.html
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2008 4:40 PM, j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > "But I would argue that the human capacity here is qualitatively and
> > > quantitatively on a dramatically different level than that of even the
> > > most intelligent non-human creatures (of which we are aware)."
> > >
> > > I understand what you are saying. We can agree on the "quantitatively"
> > > part (although my lab exhibits quite a bit more "forgiveness and love"
> > > than his human master <G>)
> > >
> > > We appear to disagree on the "qualitatively" part. What specific
> > > attribute do humans have that no other species have? It is not
> > > aesthetics, nor altruism, nor love (not even agape love). Nor speech,
> > > nor tool-making, etc. etc. Actually, I can think of none. Perhaps you
> > > can. If you cannot, how then would you argue your "qualitatively"
> > > claim?
> > >
> > > Burgy
> > >
> >
> >
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 20 19:58:28 2008