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

David -- you mis-represent my views. It seems to me that this is not
yor fault, but mine, for striving tto be clear and failing to do so.

This thread has gone on long enough.

All the best

Burgy

On 2/21/08, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Burgy said: What I seek, and so far the search has come up empty, is some
> OBJECTIVE attribute of humanity that would distinguish this IOG. For
> me, this has to be a difference of kind, not a difference of degree.
>
> Why is a capacity for understanding of notions of "good" and "evil" not
> "objective?" Why is a capacity for producing sustained ethical reflection,
> ala Aristotle, etc., not "objective?" Why is a capacity for producing a
> literary tradition on themes of "the good," "justice," and "evil," ala
> Shakespeare, etc., not "objective?" If that isn't "objective," what is?
> How is that fact that elephants have graveyards more "objective" than all of
> the above? The indicia I've mentioned are not only "objective," they're
> empirically measurable. Let's produce a chart, for example, of the number
> of pages elephants have written on the theme of "justice" as compared to the
> number of pages written by humans.
>
> As to the distinction between a difference of kind vs. a difference of
> degree, who says that's a valid distinction? Aren't most differences of
> "kind" really reducible to differences of "degree?" At some point, doesn't
> something differ so much in "degree" that it also differs in "kind?" And at
> what level of being are we making this degree / kind distinction?
>
> Would you argue, for example, that elephants are exactly the same "kind" of
> organism as mice or spiders or fish or bacteria? After all, at least at the
> genetic level, the differences between all of them are only differences of
> degree, and all of them ultimately spring from a common ancestor. But the
> claim that elephants are the same "kind" of organism as bacteria seems
> absurd to me.
>
> Finally, when it comes to the question of "mind" / "soul" / "emotion," on
> what basis do you argue that an elephant's "emotions" are the same as a
> human's except for "degree?" How do you know that an elephant's emotional /
> mental life is of the same kind as a human's? I'd suggest that, just as we
> must conceive of the "mind of God" analogically based on human experiences,
> we can only conceive of the "mind of an elephant" analogically. In both
> cases, we have no way to experience the "mind" of the other. We can draw
> analogies, but we have no direct empirical basis for making stronger claims.
>
>
> This problem of analogy, in my view, necessarily leads us back to some
> theological presuppositions. The most basic way in which we know we differ
> in kind from elephants is because God has revealed that fact to us. The
> observable evidence, whether you call it "degree" or "kind," only confirms
> this.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:04 PM, j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/20/08, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Let me try one more time, since it is clear from the above that we are
> > talking past one another.
> >
> > The claim is that humans are made in the "image of God." What I wish
> > to do is explore what that might mean. I do not deny it -- indeed, I
> > affirm it. But I seem to be able to defend the claim ONLY on
> > religious/theological grounds. Much as you do in your last post above.
> >
> > What I seek, and so far the search has come up empty, is some
> > OBJECTIVE attribute of humanity that would distinguish this IOG. For
> > me, this has to be a difference of kind, not a difference of degree.
> >
> > Cordially, Burgy
> >
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 22 09:58:36 2008