Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual evolution)

There is a concept found in science monographs that is relevant,
emergence. It provides that the effect of the sum of the parts is greater
than effect of the individual parts. Current neurologists argue that
intelligence and consciousness are the product of the immense number of
neurons, support cells and their interconnections. It is clearly possible
that what we recognize as conscience is a product of understanding the
connection between the attitudes of several individuals who are mutually
involved. This is entirely within a naturalistic framework, which can
take us a long way toward an explanation of conscience. On the other
hand, if we posit a divine input into consciousness (I note that the
French have only one word to cover both conscience and consciousness),
then we have entered metaphysical categories that are no longer purely
natural.

Note that an ingrained notion of right may be akin to "don't do that
because the whole tribe will beat you to a pulp if you do." Despite its
label as a logical fallacy, the /argumentum ad bacculum/ is notably
effective. The main reason it doesn't work with most career criminals,
according to a colleague who was in charge of educational facilities in a
federal correction institution, is that the inmates were the ones stupid
enough to believe that they would not be caught again. The smart ones, he
claimed, didn't get caught.
Dave (ASA)

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:15:58 -0800 "Dehler, Bernie"
<bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
> Moorad said:
> " If evolution is a purely scientific process, I do not see how
> humans can evolve a conscience that has to do with the notions of
> right and wrong, which are not scientific concepts."
>
> Why is the evolution of the conscience any different than that of
> flight? Wings make flight possible, the brain makes the conscience
> possible. Is "flight" a "scientific concept?" It is just something
> that creatures with wings do. Also helping to develop the
> conscience are other things, such as the ability to speak (so we can
> communicate- what's right, wrong, about feelings, etc.). Lower
> forms of life have a more primitive conscience, I think (such as "if
> I steal that banana from that monkey he'll probably pound me") ...
> analyzing consequences from potential behaviors). Now, we have a
> more developed conscience "if you do that you'll go to prison" or
> "if you do that you'll go to hell." "All these bad things are
> sins." "If you want to be cleaned from your sins, accept the work
> of Christ on the cross."
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:08 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual
> evolution)
>
> If evolution is a purely scientific process, I do not see how humans
> can evolve a conscience that has to do with the notions of right and
> wrong, which are not scientific concepts. God, somehow, must have
> provided or instilled that notion of right and wrong, but then we
> have the start of the story of Adam.
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Mon 11/17/2008 11:53 AM
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual
> evolution)
>
>
>
> George- the way I see it, is that sin was always there. Only, humans
> have evolved a conscience so then it became known to us. For
> example, a bear or lion can kill another of its kind simply for
> selfish reasons. It can also rape. That is not a sin for them (it
> is actually normal evolution- part of God's plan). But they are
> also not offered eternal life and a relationship with God. When
> humans evolved the conscience, we are able to view that as 'sin'
> whereas lower animals are 'blind' to that. With our conscience, we
> are no longer 'blind' to this and many other spiritual things
> (unless we get calloused to sin and then blind ourselves). We then
> have a choice to receive God or not- being "born again" and becoming
> "new creatures in Christ." I think being born-again is the
> "next-step" in evolution, and then the methods of evolution actually
> change (no longer ONLY "gene-driven" but now additionally driven by
> the head and heart, amongst other biological things). We can add !
>
>
> "gene-therapy" (head) to the evolutionary process, for example,
> along with compassion for the weaker (heart).
>
> So when humans evolved, they recognized sin. I don't see them as
> taking a wrong turn. However, when humans are individually
> confronted with God (in general revelation) or even ultimately the
> gospel, then they have a choice to make. This is the time they can
> become new creatures by being born again... or stay on the old
> animalistic path. The old path leads to death. The new path is
> narrow and leads to eternal life.
>
> I'd like to know your opinion of what you think I have wrong,
> regarding the above.
>
> And Moorad- yes- 100%- the Bible does get reinterpreted in light of
> modern science. I like the two books approach: God's Word and God's
> works. Both books must be read. Both contain truth. To ignore one
> book would be to look at reality in a very warped way (may as well
> believe the Earth is flat and the Sun orbits the Earth). Some
> accept a literal Adam with evolution, but I think with evolution
> Adam must be metaphorical since nothing was passed down from just
> one man genetically and evolution works in populations.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 3:38 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad; Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual
> evolution)
>
> Moorad-
>
> I agree that 'we could have not have "fallen" if we were not in an
> "un-fallen" state,' but I think language of "fallenness" isn't the
> most
> appropriate. Rather, as I discussed in my 2006 article, I think
> that the
> image of "taking the wrong road" corresponds better both to the
> picture
> given in the early chapters of Genesis & to what happened to early
> humanity - though I don't think the former is a blow by blow
> description of
> the latter.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>; "Dehler, Bernie"
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:28 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual
> evolution)
>
>
> George it was nice meeting you and listening to your talk in New
> Bern, NC. I
> want to view this issue of sin as simply as possible without, I
> hope,
> distorting or minimizing the depth and importance of this problem.
>
>
>
> Jesus came to undue something we did. However, what did we do?
> Surely, we
> could have not have "fallen" if we were not in an "un-fallen" state
> for
> otherwise we would be "fallen" creatures and not deserving of
> eternal
> punishment. If God turned some sort of lower form of being into a
> human,
> since evolution could have not accomplished that, would not then
> that be
> Adam. The issue then becomes, were there many Adams turned or only
> one? Are
> we then only reinterpreting Scripture to accommodate our knowledge
> of
> evolution? However, this seems somewhat contrived.
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of George Murphy
> Sent: Fri 11/14/2008 5:04 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual
> evolution)
>
>
> Bernie -
>
> 1st, sin was not "always there." It only arose in the world when
> creatures
> came into being who were able to be aware to some extent of God's
> will for
> them & to be able to either obey or disobey it. (With my
> qualification "in
> the world" I am bypassing the question of an angelic fall.) There
> was no
> sin before there were "theological humans" - not because our
> consciences
> create sin (God decides what is sin) but because there was no one
> for whom
> the concept "sin" was meaningful.
>
> Then note that I said nothing about a "fall." When humans, in the
> above
> sense, came into being they could in principle have progressed
> toward the
> goal God intended. They didn't. That's what I meant by the process
> getting
> off track.
>
> Of course images of "roads" or the crude diagram I sketched have
> serious
> limitations. There is no need to think that there was precisely one
> path
> that would have led from Point A to the eschaton. Similarly, there
> are many
> wrong paths. & as I tried to indicate in my sketch, the work of
> Christ
> doesn't immediately put us back on one of the original correct paths
> but
> rather reorients our path so that we're headed back to where we're
> supposed
> to end up rather than away from it.
>
> There is a sense in which the "fall" is in each of us, and more than
> that,
> it's in each of us over & over. Genesis 3 is our story. But it's
> not just
> the story of everyman and everywoman, for its presented in scripture
> as a
> story set at the beginning of the human race. When Steve has the 2
> parts of
> my response up on his blog, take a look at my responses to Denis L's
> position.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 2:42 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual
> evolution)
>
>
> David said:
> "My specific concern is that it starts to sound like panentheism or
> other
> such systems in which humanity is inevitably becoming more
> "godlike." There
> are plenty of new-agey worldview systems out there in which humans,
> along
> with the rest of the universe and "god," are evolving together
> towards a
> common future. These systems tend not to have any notion of sin and
> redemption, which of course are essential to Christianity."
>
>
>
> The idea is "Christian" (not panentheism) because becoming
> born-again, a new
> creature, is all about Jesus and His work (the Christian gospel).
> In
> biological evolution, you have isolated groups, then change. In
> this case,
> an isolated group is one with the spiritual nature- although it is
> not
> 'inherited' in the new gene pool but passed along in the meme,
> rather than
> gene.
>
>
>
> George said:
> "But what's missing here is that after humans form, (at stage 6.1 or
> something like that) the evolutionary process got off track, and the
> work of
> Christ in his ministry, death and resurrection and the subsequent
> work of
> Christ and the Spirit through the church (.e., you stage 7)are
> directed to
> getting the process back toward the ultimate goal God intends."
>
>
>
> Thanks for your contribution, George. You are implying that
> creation was
> good at some point, and then got corrupted (went off-track). But
> you and I
> both accept a non-historical Adam- no real person named Adam. We
> did not
> fall into sin- sin was always there and our conscience arose (via
> evolution)
> to recognize sin as sin. The creation of the conscience was an
> evolutionary
> thing, it detected the problem of sin, and God made a way for a
> solution,
> which is another step in evolution. So there's no literal
> historical "fall
> event," so I still see the straight-line progression. The "fall" is
> in each
> one of us when we recognize our sinful nature.
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:59 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual
> evolution)
>
>
>
> Bernie -
>
>
>
> If I may butt in - & not really deal with Lewis's views - it looks
> to me as
> if you're arguing for the same sort of thing Teilhard & other
> process
> theologians have in mind. I.e., the work of Christ (which would
> have to be
> stage 6.5 in your scheme) is seen as part of the general
> evolutionary
> process. & in one sense it is - in Christ God becomes a participant
> in that
> process. But what's missing here is that after humans form, (at
> stage 6.1
> or something like that) the evolutionary process got off track, and
> the work
> of Christ in his ministry, death and resurrection and the subsequent
> work of
> Christ and the Spirit through the church (.e., you stage 7)are
> directed to
> getting the process back toward the ultimate goal God intends.
>
>
>
> Diagramatically (if this shows up right) it's not just
>
>
>
> 1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8
>
>
>
> (8 being the final Kingdom of God) but
>
>
>
> 1__2__3__4__5__6_6.1 8
>
> \ /
>
> \ /
>
> \ 7
>
> \ /
>
> 6.5
>
>
>
> On the gospel being "ther nex step" in evolution, I would prefer to
> speak of
> the church, the Body of Christ, as the next stage in evolution, as
> Teilhard
> did. But that needs to be placed in the "crooked" diagram I
> sketched rather
> than a straight one.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 1:39 PM
>
> Subject: RE: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual
> evolution)
>
>
>
> Hi David- let me state it this way, and tell me what you think (lots
> of
> steps are skipped, like in biblical geneologies :-) :
>
>
>
> Evolutionary sequence:
>
>
>
> 1. Big bang (nothing but energy- no matter)
> 2. Elements form (matter forms)
> 3. Stars form
> 4. Planets form
> 5. Biological life forms
> 6. Humans form
> 7. The "spiritual man" forms
>
>
>
> That is taking Lewis' ch. 11 literally. Where's the error? Yes,
> God does
> something new in step 7 (directly intervening and creating a
> personal
> relationship with humans/God), but there's always something
> radically new
> anyway in each major stage- so why is that a problem? This seems
> like an
> interesting impact on evangelism- a message for scientific people to
> accept
> the next stage... become a "new creature" and enter into a
> relationship with
> God. I feel like I'm spear-heading something here... taking Lewis
> farther
> than he intended- has anyone else wrote or espoused this possibility
> of the
> gospel being in-line with evolution as "the next step?"
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> ent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:01 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
>
>
>
> I don't think Lewis is making those distinctions; he's trying to
> make an
> analogy with biological evolution.
>
>
>
> If all you mean is that conversion is an "evolutionary" process in
> the sense
> that it is gradual and happens over time, I think that is a fair
> statement,
> at least if we are understanding "coversion" to mean the entire
> ordro
> salutis.
>
>
>
> But the analogy still breaks down because Christian conversion is
> obviously
> teleological, while natural evolution is not (at least from a human
> perspective). Moreover, Christian conversion doesn't happen in
> accordance
> with natural laws -- it specifically requires divine intervention.
>
>
>
> So, it seems to me a limited analogy. The classical notion of a
> "pilgrimage" or the Pauline idea of running a race seem more apt.
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Dehler, Bernie
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi David-
>
>
>
> Evolution is different in different realms. For example, there is
> the sex
> act in some biological evolution, but not all. For chemical
> evolution,
> there is no sex. Same with planetary evolution. DNA mutation plays
> a part
> in biological evolution, but no part in planetary or star evolution.
> Therefore, there's nothing wrong with the next step of evolution,
> getting
> born again, being by choice. Evolution also creates new things, for
> example, the ability to hear, see, talk, think, etc. The new thing
> in this
> case is the introduction of the spiritual man, and the way it is
> received.
>
>
>
> I'm still looking at to why this chapter can't be taken literally.
> Any
> other ideas? Does this seem foolish, or am I picking-up on
> something new?
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 3:14 PM
>
>
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
>
>
>
>
> That conversion is analogous to biological evolution. Biological
> evolution
> happens "naturally." Conversion doesn't.
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Dehler, Bernie
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> I guess a clarifying question of mine would be "What does Lewis say
> in Ch.
> 11 that is figurative and can't be literal?"
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:01 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
>
>
>
>
> It's an interesting analogy. But read it carefully -- nowhere is
> Lewis
> suggesting that we simply evolve into new creations. His focus is
> on
> transformation, of the sort that only comes through submission to
> Christ.
> He uses the metaphor of evolution to suggest that this process, as
> it occurs
> in Christians here on earth, isn't always obvious and often is
> gradual. But
> without that crucial aspect of transformation by Christ and in
> Christ,
> you're really starting to talk about a different gospel, I think.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Dehler, Bernie
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> One thing I wanted to share and see what feedback I get.
>
>
>
> I kind of feel like I might be going-off the deep-end. The reason
> why is
> because of how I understand C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity"
> (online here:
> http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt )
>
>
>
> In his last chapter, 11, "The New Men," he offers evolution as a
> metaphor
> for gospel transformation. Here's why I think I might be going-off
> the
> deep-end: I'm starting to see what he wrote as literal instead of
> figurative. It seems so profound and touching, I'm wondering if
> what he
> says about evolution isn't really just an analogy, but literally
> true.
>
>
>
> By evolution, I mean "total evolution" not just biological
> evolution. Total
> evolution explains how everything evolves- from the big-bang, to
> elements,
> to stars, planets, etc. Maybe the work of Christ is the latest
> injection
> according to total evolution? He talks about "the next step" in
> evolution-
> the ability to be born-again.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I feel strange taking something that was offered as an
> analogy to be
> thinking of it quite literally.
>
>
>
> I'll likely be giving a presentation of this chapter 11 at one of
> the
> meetings I hold, so I would appreciate feedback on this chapter.
>
>
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Find the apartment of your dreams by clicking here now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw15IDFl7taHvR0wTbWESzaJTRMOqlJpVy4ahUiWIDix15pGF/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 17 15:10:24 2008