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

A lot of people have responded to Karl's comment about dualism since I was
last here. I would be more happy with some type of non-reductive
physicalism myself though there are problems with that too. But I don't
think that the issues in the exchange between Karl & myself below - & in
particular, the extent to which sin is an empirical reality - really require
a decision about that larger issue. Even a person who rejects dualism
should recognize that people have thoughts, motives &c which can be known by
others only to a quite limited extent, & this is quite relevant to the
question about sin.

Does the person sitting in the pew behind me in church really put her
ultimate trust in the God revealed in Christ, or even try to? Or does she
just pretend to be a Christian because her parents want her to, or it's
socially acceptable, or she can make business contacts that way? Does she
really love her neighbor or hate his guts? Can we always distinguish
between genuine faith and hypocrisy? It is precisely the fact that we are
"deeply and profoundly sinful" that makes us conceal our sinfulness under
the appearance of piety and morality. We conceal it even from ourselves.
That's one reason why the reformers objected to the idea that all sins have
to be listed in private confession. It just can't be done. Of course
skilled pastors, therapists & polygraph operators can get some of this out
in the open but hardly all.

Certainly those inner sins have empirical correlates. Committing the
physical act of adultery is something that we can confirm scientifically but
we can't always confirm that someone has looked upon a woman (or man) with
lust in his/her heart. & Jesus says that the 2d part of that is adultery
even without the 1st.

I realize that some extreme anti-dualists would argue that our inner
thoughts aren't real "things" at all but just epiphenomena accompanying
brain activity. I find that very implausible, if not self-contradictory.
If if that makes me a dualist, I can live with it.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "karl.w.giberson@enc.edu" <gibersok@gmail.com>
To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Cc: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>; "Ted Davis"
<TDavis@messiah.edu>; "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>; "Stephen Matheson"
<smatheso@calvin.edu>; "Steve Martin" <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

> 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/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 10 14:50:26 2008