Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

Dualism is one of those meta questions that make it possible to ever
really get on the same page. Everything I wrote is irrelevant if
dualism is true. If you are a dualist, you can keep ALL the
doctrines, and change nothing. When I say "must" I really mean
"unless you are a dualist, you must". So feel free to reject all my
proposals as they don't apply to a dualistic understanding.

The theologians and philosophers I talk to all reject dualism. I am
under the impression that it has a negligibly small place in
contemporary discourse. Many biblical scholars consider dualism to be
non-biblical, a Greek idea from Plato that is inconsistent with
Hebraic understandings. The whole point of affirming the
"resurrection of the body" is that there is no other way to recover
the person. If dualism were true, then our immaterial souls could
exist apart from our bodies.

2008/6/10 David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>:
> "Dualism is not considered a viable option anymore?" Who sez?
>
> This is another reason I'm uncomfortable with the term thesitic
> "evolutionist." If "evolution" means I must conclude that there is no
> possibility of an immaterial part of human nature (call it "soul" or
> "mind"), then I reject it on philosophical and theological grounds -- or, at
> least, I reject any argument that "evolution" at this point is making a
> "scientific" claim. If "science" is really restricted to methdological
> naturalism, then "science" can't disprove the existence of an immaterial
> soul -- period. It seems to me that this kind black-and-white statement
> gets us right back into "warfare" mode, with "science" winning the war, even
> though the issue isn't really scientific. It simply pits the authority of
> science against the authority of philosophy and theology (disciplines in
> which the possibility of dualism is alive, well, and healthy). There is no
> discourse here, only dictation.
>
> Moreover, one need not be a traditional dualist or even a theist to believe
> there is something "more" to the human mind. Nonreductive physicalism, with
> "mind" as an emergent property, is important precisely because it's
> "nonreductive." We don't necessarily have to picture God "installing" an
> immaterial soul. We could picture God directing the development of the
> human brain in such a way that consciousness and "mind" emerge so that human
> beings can relate to God.
>
> Now, I anticipate one counter argument is that other animals -- elephants,
> dolphins, other primates, etc. -- display many of the attributes we
> attribute to something like the imago Dei, "mind," or "soul." True, but the
> degree of difference is so great that it becomes a difference in kind. Show
> me a group of elephants who can establish enduring systems of doctrine,
> church institutions, liturgy and worship music -- and who can debate what
> "mind" and "soul" mean.
>
> And in response to Jim A's question -- yes, the discourse is unending.
> We're human, we will never figure everything out, and one of the tasks God
> gives us is to continue the discrusive / dialectical process of loving Him
> with our minds.
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:17 AM, karl.w.giberson@enc.edu
> <gibersok@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In rereading the posts, I sense that some participants are dualists.
>> To speak of something "immaterial" that God installed in a physical
>> creature is to be a dualist. If we allow dualism, we can do all kinds
>> of interesting things theologically. Unfortunately dualism is not
>> considered a viable option any more so we are stuck with having to
>> take seriously that "sin" is coded in our genes and has an actual
>> physical aspect.
>>
>> 2008/6/10 karl.w.giberson@enc.edu <gibersok@gmail.com>:
>> > I am uncomfortable with the statement "Sin is a theological concept &
>> > has to do first with our relationship with God" if it detaches sin
>> > from our human nature and turns it into something "non-empirical."
>> > This seems dualistic to me. I think human rejection of God is
>> > motivated by our human natures, which evolved to be selfish. We can
>> > bring mystery on board and say things like "The crucial question,
>> > however, is
>> >> how they responded when they were given (somehow) an awareness of God
>> >> and
>> >> God's will," but, if we take this route, we will find it hard to make
>> >> much use of what we know from science.
>> >
>> > Do I understand you to be saying that sin is only an issue in our
>> > relation to God, and not to the creation?
>> >
>> > 2008/6/10 George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>:
>> >> For a start (& certainly not he most important point here), Chesterton
>> >> &
>> >> others who say that the doctrine of original sin has empirical proof
>> >> are
>> >> wrong. Sin is a theological concept & has to do first with our
>> >> relationship
>> >> with God. We know empirically that people do lots of nasty things, but
>> >> whether or not we fear, love & trust in the true God above all things
>> >> isn't
>> >> something that can be determined quite so easily. The genetic &
>> >> behavioral
>> >> background of early humans indeed hadcomponents tending them toward
>> >> violence, sexual promiscuity & deceit. The crucial question, however,
>> >> is
>> >> how they responded when they were given (somehow) an awareness of God
>> >> and
>> >> God's will.
>> >>
>> >> Then yes, we are deeply & profoundly sinful. That's why Augustine was
>> >> right
>> >> & Pelagius wrong, quite apart from questions about why, how or when
>> >> that
>> >> sinful condition originated. But sin is not essential to who we are as
>> >> creatures of God. That's why Article I of the Formula of Concord,
>> >> while it
>> >> emphatically rejects anything smelling of Pelagianiam, also rejected
>> >> the
>> >> view of Flacius that sin was of the essence of fallen humanity. & part
>> >> of
>> >> making that distinction is to say that human sinfulness had a
>> >> beginning,
>> >> that the first humans (& how widely spread a group that is in space &
>> >> time
>> >> is unknown) who had some awareness of God's will for them, chose to go
>> >> in
>> >> another direction.
>> >>
>> >> Genesis 3 is, as is often said, the story of every person. But we
>> >> can't
>> >> ignore the canonical structure of scripture which places that story at
>> >> the
>> >> very beginning. Since it is the story of every person it is the story
>> >> of
>> >> the first persons.
>> >>
>> >> Shalom
>> >> George
>> >> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "karl.w.giberson@enc.edu"
>> >> <gibersok@gmail.com>
>> >> To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>> >> Cc: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>; "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>;
>> >> "Stephen
>> >> Matheson" <smatheso@calvin.edu>; "Steve Martin"
>> >> <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
>> >> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:12 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are
>> >> required?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> David:
>> >>>
>> >>> You have framed the question in a very clear and helpful way. My
>> >>> thinking on this is as follows: all the evidence suggests that our
>> >>> species and its predecessors shared a steadily evolving gene pool.
>> >>> This gene pool contained the raw material out of which our physical,
>> >>> mental and even spiritual natures arise. It is hard to even imagine
>> >>> what it would mean for God to choose an "agent" and then do something
>> >>> with this agent that would then spread to all subsequent offspring.
>> >>> What would happen, for example, to the contemporaries of this agent?
>> >>> This is not what a literal reading of Genesis suggests and it doesn't
>> >>> fit naturally into the scientific picture, so what do we have to
>> >>> commend it? It seems to me that the "Fall" can be understood as that
>> >>> part of our human natures that evolved to exhibit a pathological
>> >>> selfishness. As G. K. Chesterton observed, this is the only Christian
>> >>> doctrine with rigorous empirical proof!
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't see the problem with our sinful natures emerging slowly,
>> >>> through time, rather than suddenly, as suggested in the biblical
>> >>> story. The reality of our sinful natures is a deep theological insight
>> >>> and one that we should appreciate. There were times in history—think
>> >>> Rousseau and Marx—when philosophers dismissed the idea of "natural"
>> >>> sinfulness and ridiculed the biblical insight. But nobody would do
>> >>> that now. We now understand, as the author of Genesis and the apostle
>> >>> Paul both did, that we are deeply and profoundly sinful. I see no
>> >>> reason to insist that the fall be anything more than an affirmation
>> >>> that this is indeed a true picture of the human condition. (It is
>> >>> also the reason why "second work of grace" theology always struck me
>> >>> as suspect, although I am, to a first approximation, a Wesleyan.)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Karl Giberson, Ph.D,
>> > www.karlgiberson.com
>> > Professor of Physics, Eastern Nazarene College, Quincy, MA
>> > Director of the Forum on Faith & Science, Gordon College, Wenham, MA.
>> > Phone: 781-801-2189
>> > Fax: 617-847-5933
>> >
>> > "A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs --
>> > jolted by every pebble in the road." Henry Ward Beecher
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karl Giberson, Ph.D,
>> www.karlgiberson.com
>> Professor of Physics, Eastern Nazarene College, Quincy, MA
>> Director of the Forum on Faith & Science, Gordon College, Wenham, MA.
>> Phone: 781-801-2189
>> Fax: 617-847-5933
>>
>> "A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs --
>> jolted by every pebble in the road." Henry Ward Beecher
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

-- 
Karl Giberson, Ph.D,
www.karlgiberson.com
Professor of Physics, Eastern Nazarene College, Quincy, MA
Director of the Forum on Faith & Science, Gordon College, Wenham, MA.
Phone: 781-801-2189
Fax: 617-847-5933
 "A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs --
jolted by every pebble in the road." Henry Ward Beecher
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.