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

Ok -- but I thought it was a fun conversation. It'd be nice to hear more
clearly what you're thinking.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM, j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 10:56:11 2008