Experimental science and theology have nothing to do with each other.
Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Thu 6/26/2008 12:14 PM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
So Dave, you don't think science has an impact in shaping theology? That's my main point, and you seem to be disagreeing with it.
...Bernie
________________________________
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:37 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
No, we're not together because you are trying to make various interpretations of the "science" theological. One God the source of all is theology, and in its time, apologetic. The timing and methodology is not theology, but represents ancient cosmology and twisted eisegesis.
Dave (ASA)
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:13:36 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
Hi Dave-
We have two things-
1. The actual text of Genesis 1 & 2
2. The interpretation (theology) of Genesis 1 & 2
Ok- let's assume the text hasn't changed. We now deal with only part 2.
For part 2, there are two time periods to discuss:
A. What is the ancient theology (interpretation)?
B. What is the modern theology (interpretation)?
For part A, ancient theology, maybe we are both in agreement that it is ANE science (firmament, flat earth, geocentricism, etc.). Maybe everyone saw it the same way back then (in the time of Moses and even up to Jesus and the Apostles).
For part B, we have different camps (YEC, OEC, TE, etc.). YEC is like ANE except they accept some Book 2 (modern science) such as heliocentricity and a round Earth.
So maybe for part A one could say there is a theology of Gen 1 & 2, but today (part B) there is no "theology" but instead "theologies."
Are our minds converging yet?
...Bernie
________________________________
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:37 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
Bernie,
Are you saying that the clear declaration that there is one God and that he created what the ANE claimed as gods is not theological? Of course, if one fudges on the exegesis, there are some very stupid theological claims. Recall that there are sluice gates in the firmament to let the waters above the firmament flow. Of course, this can be a canopy that Glenn showed would cook the earth. Even it did not have sluice gates. Of course, there is the nonsense that all we have is what it says to each individual, so that there are as many truths as persons.
Dave (ASA)
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:49:23 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
Dave Siemens said:
"There is a great difference between the theology of Genesis 1 and 2 and the ANE "science.""
I don't think that statement makes sense. There is no such thing as a "theology of Genesis 1 and 2." Everyone has their own "theology of Genesis 1 and 2", some incorporating ANE and some not. I would say Book 1 is the Bible, and Book 2 includes science and history (like ANE history and modern history). A persons theology may or may not consider ANE concepts.
George Murphy said:
"We don't literally "read" the world."
I could argue that. I think Book 2 could be read as much as Book 1. Sure, no book could contain everything about nature, but neither could any book contain everything about God. We can read about the world in textbooks and other books- that's the primary way I'm learning about science and history from others, and also through the spoken word (podcasts). Book 1 and 2 isn't much different in that respect:
Book 1: God's Word: The Bible which tells us about God and salvation. Without literally reading this book, we would know nothing about the death and resurrection of Christ (there would only be verbal stories- and numerous versions so as to confuse the message). People learn about God by reading the Bible, commentaries, and listening to lectures of those trained in theology.
Book 2: God's works: History and science. People learn these from reading actual textbooks, books, and listening to lectures of those trained in science and history.
Both use literal books to get their message across. Even Book 1 has many translations and many languages, and the original is lost. So I think we do literally read about God's Words and God's works, and also contemplate the concepts in our minds (meditating on applications and impact of all this knowledge).
George Murphy said:
"...for Christians God's primary revelation is God's actions in history that point to & culminate in Christ. It isn't the Bible, which is a witness to that revelation."
The Bible is a witness, true. But it is also the vehicle for the message. No Bible, no message. No Bible, and all you have are numerous conflicting verbal stories... like playing the game of telephone. In this way, it seems to me the Bible has a much stronger role that you are suggesting by that statement, because I think without the Bible, we'd really have no faith at all.
Each book can tell us something that the other can't. For example, Book 1 tells us about the remedy for sin, but not Book 2. Book 2 tells us about photosynthesis, but not Book 1. Sometimes they disagree on points, such as the worldwide flood; and in that case, we have to pick a winner when there is a direct contradiction.
I have a book called "The three views of Genesis." Each believes the Bible is inerrant. For the meaning of day, one has a 24 hr interpretation, one day-age, and the other framework. The 24hr. view claims the other two are compromised by modern science, as if Book 2 is corrupting them. To my surprise, the other two claim that they are not driven by Book 2, but by hermeneutics and internal evidence... I think that is untrue. Why not admit there is a Book 2 and it should take precedence? Oh- how evil it must be to have nature affect your theology? I agree with YEC's that the only reason not to have a YEC position is because modern science (Book 2) is consulted. And I'm not a YEC. I accept that there is a Book 2 and encourage it's use and dominance over Book 1 where it is clearly (to me) more correct, such as in the worldwide flood question.
,,,Bernie
________________________________
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 2:16 PM
To: GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com
Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
I think I would put the matter more strongly. There is a great difference between the theology of Genesis 1 and 2 and the ANE "science." Theology is not about a mud pie origin for man with woman coming later, or a simultaneous creation of both sexes, but the fact that God is the originator and director of all that is. While most peoples have recognized some sort of deity, I keep running across psychological and evolutionary explanations for this. And a strong philosophical case for materialism can be made. I deny such claims on the basis of scripture, not because of what I can deduce from a study of nature.
Dave (ASA)
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:29:24 -0400 "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> writes:
That makes it sound as if theology is committed to a worldwide flood & loses out to science on that issue. It's much better to say that theology needs to be open to the insights of the sciences in its interpretation of biblical texts - which is pretty much what I've said.
As to the point about "books" - both the "books" of which we're speaking when we talk about knowledge of God from science & from God's historical revelation are metaphorical. We don't literally "read" the world. & for Christians God's primary revelation is God's actions in history that point to & culminate in Christ. It isn't the Bible, which is a witness to that revelation. (& no, I don't mean to say that the Bible can't be spoken of as revelation but it isn't primary.) In this regard Christianity differs from Islam.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:11 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
George Murphy said:
"But it is wrong to say that the sciences always trump theology."
I don't think I said that, but I did say that Book 2 (God's works) can trump Book 1 (God's Word).
As an example, Book 1 says there was a worldwide flood, and Book 2 disagrees (in mine and George Murphy's opinion). I think Book 2 wins. Book 2 trumped Book 1. Theology is adapted accordingly.
I think David Opderbeck made a good point in his first response on this thread about the queen- we are confusing the topics "two books" with "Theology as Queen." Theology can be based on anything, 0 or more books... even mystics with no books have their own theology, as well as scholars who consider all books. Claiming to have no theology is also a theology in itself.
...Bernie
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:46 AM
To: David Opderbeck; Ted Davis
Cc: asa@calvin.edu; George Cooper
Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (The Queen of Sciences)
I see that I stirred up a good deal of discussion & won't try to respond to everything point by point. But a few clarifications -
1st, there are some phrases in my original post that seem to have been overlooked. I said that a putative general revelation - I would rather just say "observation of the world and reason" - "tells us nothing about who the true God or about the Incarnation & atonement." I did not deny that a person may conclude from observation of the world that "there is a God." But it simply does not tell us who that God is - i.e., that he is the one who brought Israel out of Egypt & raised Jesus from the dead. It tells us nothing about God as Trinity or the Incarnation. Nothing. & that has always been recognized by Christians who argue for a natural knowledge of God.
2d, I used the image of theology of the queen of the sciences to develop a metaphor. Note my language - "If (as used to be said) theology is the queen of the sciences, the other sciences are her ministers." David O & Ted D have had some interesting things to say about the "queen of the sciences" idea but my purpose in evoking it was simply to have a picturesque way of describing the roles of theology & the natural sciences other than the well-worn "2 books" one.
& I went on to say, "But a wise queen will listen to her ministers in their areas of competence." (Emphasis added.) Bernie says quite rightly that when it comes, e.g., to the question of 6-day creation or evolution, evolution wins. That is because theology listens to the sciences when they speak about their own areas of competence and, as I said further, will "if necessary reconsider its interpretation of biblical texts in that light."
But it is wrong to say that the sciences always trump theology. The serious danger of the ideas of natural knowledge of God and natural theology is that people will begin to think that they can learn everything they need to know about God and God's will for us by studying the world - or in other words, from "natural revelation." Nor is this a mere theoretical danger - it was pervasive in the eighteenth & nineteenth centuries with the thought of the Enlightenment & deism, & is quite explicit in something like Lessing's "Education of the Human Race." I could give numerous examples & Ted D could no doubt do so more thoroughly. What it produced at best was a kind of unitarian deism with an emphasis on morality & some kind of hope for an "afterlife." & you can find this sort of thing today - e.g., Paul Davies.
The proper procedure in theology, as I emphasized in the PSCF article I referenced, is to start with God's historical revelation that culminates in Christ. Then we know who God is and can turn to what science tells us about the natural world and in some ways learn more fully how the God revealed in Christ is active in the world. We do that by looking at scientific knowledge in the light of that historical revelation - that's why I used the title The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross for one of my books. & that's the kind of thing that the prophet is doing (in an OT context) in Is.40:18-25 that was cited here. He isn't pointing to the heavens as independent proof that YHWH exists. If any Babylonians had been listening in (this is written to those in exile) they would have said - "Big whoop! Marduk is the one who stretched out the heavens." (& after all, to all appearances Marduk had defeated YHWH.) Rather, the prophet is speaking to Jews from the standpoint of the !
faith of Israel & simply claiming - if you prefer, revealing - that the God in whom they'd believed, the God of the Exodus, was the creator of the whole world.
& note that at the beginning of the last paragraph I made the qualification "in theology." In studying the world, OTOH< we don't need to do any theology or say anything at all about God. The queen shouldn't micromanage her ministers.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
____________________________________________________________
Click here to save cash and find low rates on auto loans. <http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/Ioyw6i3ndyHxMd81hNT8ErrSjwkJTeuDMRbbGSBD4UaRKHL54VrVY9/>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jun 26 12:20:51 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 26 2008 - 12:20:51 EDT