Re: [asa] a theological exercise

George,

For some of us, calling this a "little theological exercise" is somewhat
like calling climbing Mount Everest "a little physical exercise". :-)

Jack:

> evangelicals that I have talked to about this, claim that altering one's
> theology to meet scientific facts is not acceptable.

That is my experience as well. And this might really be the heart of the
problem: that as Evangelicals we view our theology as pretty inflexible (and
consequentially brittle?) and have virtually canonized some of our
confessions and our (I would say necessary) response to 19th century
biblical criticism (ie. articulation of biblical inerrancy). I like what
Polkinghorne says about theology and risk taking:

> As a scientist I am often struck by theologians' persistent fear of getting
> it wrong. [In science] a willingness to explore ideas which might prove
> mistaken, or in need of revision, is a necessary price of scientific
> progress. One would have thought that the intrinsic difficulty in doing
> theology would encourage a similar intrepidity. At times (the patristic
> period, the Reformation) that has been so, but not always. I am not of
> course, denying the existence of many wild flights of contemporary
> theological fancy, but saying that within the sober core I detect a degree
> of disinclination to take intellectual risk, particularly where it involves
> interaction with another discipline. Hence the widespread neglect of natural
> science by theologians. (Science and Christian Belief, page 44)

David: The elastic band idea is probably a good analogy – and for most
Evangelicals (even theologians, not just "Evangelicals in the Pew"), the
maximum point-of-tension is defined by the set of key points you raise (eg.
a historical Fall event). For many, it is either step back (spring back)
from the abyss right here or break the faith.

thanks,

On 6/3/08, drsyme@cablespeed.com <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
> Ok I dont agree with this correction, and I did not mean to generalize that
> all evangelicals make that argument. I guess what I am saying is that this
> is a frequent argument that I hear, and I dont really know what to say to
> them. And I guess it is for the following reason: they are correct in a
> sense. Accepting the fact of human evolution does make things like original
> sin, Man made in the image of God, the historicity of Adam, etc., change
> their meaning. One's view of scripture is likely to change too, (for
> example Paul being mistaken about Adam not being historical.) Has there
> ever been a systematic theology that is consistent with evolution based on
> scriptural interpretation alone, or has all theology had to change with our
> better understanding of nature? I would say that compared to those who
> accept old earth views but deny evolution, that the YEC are more consistent
> in their view of scripture. Those that have dared to stare into the eyes of
> the beast, and come out with a cohesive view of both science and
> Christianity are a vast minority I am afraid.
>
>
>
> *On Tue Jun 3 15:44 , "David Opderbeck" sent:
>
> *
>
> I think you're right about the "evangelical-in-the-pew." However, I'm not
> sure you're right about this as a matter of evangelical theology generally.
> I'd venture to say that most serious evangelical thinkers (yes I know
> "serious" is a loaded term) accept standard geology and an old earth because
> science dictates it. So they will change their interpretations of scripture
> and their theology (here, significantly, the nature of "death" before the
> fall) based on scientific conclusions. But the boundaries of how this works
> aren't infinitely elastic. The rubber band goes "sproing" and the
> conversation stops when it comes to denying any kind of historical fall --
> maybe for good reasons, or at least for reasonable reasons.
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:31 PM, <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
>> My difficulty with your analogy of the scientist changing a theory in the
>> face of new evidence, is that most of the evangelicals that I have talked to
>> about this, claim that altering one's theology to meet scientific facts is
>> not acceptable. To them, there would be no possible scientific evidence
>> that would get them to reconsider. They understand the implications of
>> evolution, the most difficult being those David O mentioned, and most are
>> not at all interested in even trying to see if there is a consistent
>> Christian theology because the only revelation that they are concerned about
>> is biblical. In other words they will criticize because you have changed
>> your views based on science, and the conversation stops there.
>>
>>
>>
>> *On Tue Jun 3 14:07 , "George Murphy" sent:
>>
>> *
>>
>> The first book we were assigned when I started seminary was a small volume
>> by Helmut Thielicke, *A Little Exercise for Young Theologians*. I'd like
>> to propose here what I think is an important little exercise for Christians,
>> young & old, who want to engage in theology-science discussions, &
>> especially those relating to evolution.
>>
>> Let me begin with a scientific preliminary. One of the tasks of a
>> scientist, & especially a theoreticians, is to try to see how well some new
>> discovery fits in with what he/she has up until that point regarded as the
>> best theory in the relevant field. E.g., are the data generated when a new
>> particle accelerator comes on line consistent with current theories of high
>> energy physics? If they are consistent without any tinkering with the
>> theory then they can be regarded as predictions of noverl facts by that
>> theory. Perhaps some relatively minor adjustments of secondary aspects of
>> the theory are required. Or maybe there's just no natural way in which the
>> new data can be understood within the theory's framework - in which case
>> all but diehards will decide that a new theoretical framework is needed.
>>
>> OK, assume now that somehow - & "how" is not something I want to debate
>> now - it has been demonstrated scientifically, beyond any reasonable
>> doubt, that present-day human beings have descended from pre-human
>> ancestors without any unexplained gaps - physical or mental - in the
>> process. (Some might claim that that's already been done but again that
>> isn't the point now.) The exercise is to see how well this could fit in
>> with your theology - with the way that you understand God, creation,
>> sin, salvation and other aspects of the faith. Does the evolutionary
>> reality flow naturally from your theology, does that theology require some
>> modification in its secondary aspects, or is there just no way to make human
>> evolution part of your theology without changing it (the theology) totally?
>> A really serious effort should be made to accomplish the task in some
>> detail. It need not produce a dissertation but has to be more elaborate
>> than "Evolution is how God creates" or "The Bible rules out
>> evolution."
>>
>> & now the point of the exercise. Only a Christian has honestly tried to
>> do this - not necessarily succeeded but tried - has any business criticizing
>> the views of Christians who do accept human evolution.
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
>> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
Steve Martin (CSCA)
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.