RE: [asa] Re: Endgame

Bernie -

Do you recall the Star Trek NG episode in which Newton, Einstein, Hawking & Data are playing poker on the holodeck? When Data starts to explain one of Hawking's jokes about relativity to Newton, Sir Isaac interrupts him: "Don't patronize me, sir! I invented physics!"

With just a bit of hubris, that's kind of how I feel when you start explaining to me that there's no firmament. Or in the words of my younger daughter when she was 2 or 3, "I know dat." I've been in the science-theology racket for awhile.

Then to the issue at hand. I did not say that theology should dictate our understanding of the detailed course of the future of evolution. That would go against almost everything that I've been writing in this area for over 20 years. But theology does give us some insights into the world, & ought to be taken into account when we speculate (because that's what we're doing!) about the course evolution may take. & more fundamentally, where I said _some_ (NB) theological control was needed wasn't with evolutionary theory itself but with our whole understanding of the way the future will be "filled in" between now & the eschaton, & biologica evolution is only part of that.

Shalom,
George

---- "Dehler wrote:
> George said:
> " But if those surmises aren't subjected to some theological control they will be irrelevant to the underlying theological issues."
>
> What "theological control" is to be placed on future biological evolution speculations?
>
> Sounds like scientific concordance with the Bible, which is pretty much out for evolutionary creationists; there is no firmament. (My point being, if you want modern science to align with the ancient scientific understanding of universe (which the Bible writers did), we have to deal with the firmament; translating firmament as sky is just a shell-game, because the firmament is supposed to hold the stars, and there is supposed to be water over the firmament).
>
> I don't see any theological implications for directing future human evolution. We are "made in the image of God," which includes our brains which will determine (in part) the path of future biological evolution (we already do this 'directed evolution' with plants and animals).
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com [mailto:gmurphy10@neo.rr.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 11:48 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu; Dehler, Bernie
> Subject: RE: [asa] Re: Endgame
>
> The endgame is really ended in the sense that God's final future has been revealed to us in Christ. I.e., in Jesus & his relationships with God and the world we see the type of world God intends to brings about and will bring about.
>
> This does not answer the questions (a) When will the universe reach that final future in its fullness? and (b) What will happen between now and then? About (a) we're told pretty clearly that we won't know. Our understanding of biological evolution may be helpful in enabling us to guess some tentative answers to (b). But if those surmises aren't subjected to some theological control they will be irrelevant to the underlying theological issues.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> ---- "Dehler wrote:
> > "Otherwise, the 'endgame' we can say is already really 'ended.'"
> >
> > As far as I know, everyone who accepts biological evolution also thinks that biology is still evolving- we have seen the end of nothing, biologically. And if we stay on earth for another 1 to 3 million years, then I'd expect to see some major biological changes. And knowing humans, these biological changes WILL be directed/influenced by the human mind (known as "intelligent design," I suppose) via human genetic engineering. What we can do will be influenced by our ethics (known as memes). This brings up an interesting idea of memes being a major evolutionary mechanism upon genes, whereas memes arose from genes.
> >
> > ...Bernie
> > ________________________________
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Gregory Arago
> > Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 4:43 AM
> > To: asa@calvin.edu; gmurphy10@neo.rr.com
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Endgame
> >
> > Here I go again, George. And there you continue with your usual, un-updated message. Glad to know that we are still persons of our generation and not just robots. [http://mail.yimg.com/a/i/mesg/tsmileys2/14.gif]
> >
> > It is not surprising to me in the least that you didn't directly answer *any* of my three questions in the previous message. You danced, and I dance, and that's fine too!
> >
> > In your opinion, George, is your view of process theology 'evolving'? Or is it settled? Pierre Teilhard de Chardin obviously deserves a paper or thread from you as for your Lutheran-Catholic views of evolution, science and faith. I'm absolutely certain that you'll cite a previous paper you've written on this topic if it is available.
> >
> > Otherwise, the 'endgame' we can say is already really 'ended.' E.g. there'll not be another superbowl xlii. There are many who mix up history with 'evolution,' as Popper warned. Surely you'll acknowledge this, though it is neither a natural scientific (physics) nor theological recognition.
> > I agree with your view, George: "the 'endgame' isn't simply humanity but humanity indwelt by God."
> > And so welcome to social-humanitarian thought! We've been thinking about this for ages!
> >
> > Gregory (from Russia en route to India)
> >
> >
> > --- On Sat, 1/31/09, gmurphy10@neo.rr.com <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> > From: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
> > Subject: [asa] Re: Endgame
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > Received: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 5:46 AM
> >
> > To quote Reagan, "There you go again." My "position toward
> >
> > process theology" is that I have fundamental problems with it but don't reject everything that
> >
> > process theologians say. Anything more "toward process theology" in
> >
> > what I say is due to a lack of discernment in my readers.
> >
> >
> >
> > & I agree that there's plenty wrong with Teilhard's theology. For
> >
> > starters, he's certainly not a theologian of the cross. But not everything
> >
> > he said was wrong, &
> >
> > I think his understanding of the future of evolution in terms of the Pauline
> >
> > idea of the Body of Christ is pretty much on target. If you want to criticize
> >
> > that you should do it on its own ground & not haul in claims about his
> >
> > crypto-Buddhism &c.
> >
> > In particular, consider whether you're taking Paul's imagery in I
> >
> > Cor.12 & Rom.12 as well as Col.1:15-20 seriously.
> >
> >
> >
> > Shalom,
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> > ---- Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi George,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > It happens that I'm one who thinks David O.'s concern is
> >
> > legitimate. Do you deny that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin sometimes sounds
> >
> > 'just like Buddhism'? You say in one sentence that he
> >
> > 'distinguishes' himself but you don't say how or when or where.
> >
> > I've been reading Teilhard himself recently. And of course you know the
> >
> > warning about Teilhard's teachings from Rome and his 'exile'.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Yes, I know that what you say is part and parcel of your position toward
> >
> > 'process theology' and the role that Teilhard de Chardin plays in
> >
> > process theology. I just don't get the impression that your view is settled
> >
> > on this yet. Is yours a settled view, George, or a view in process (of
> >
> > formation)? Is your view 'evolving'?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > You seem to defend Teilhard's provocative paleoanthropology, his
> >
> > process ideas, his excessive evolutionism (though I might be mis-speaking here),
> >
> > his 'threat to the human identity' which was identified by the Vatican,
> >
> > and you seem to be marrying this with your particularly Lutheran theology.
> >
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong. If you haven't found a balance yet in
> >
> > this endeavour it would not be surprising - it is an extremely difficult
> >
> > task! Especially so if one is not a biologist or a sociologist...
> >
> > >
> >
> > > En route to something more mysterious than rational,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Gregory
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --- On Sat, 1/31/09, gmurphy10@neo.rr.com <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > From: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
> >
> > > Subject: Re: Endgame (Was RE: [asa] Jerry Coyne's ...)
> >
> > > To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> >
> > > Cc: "asa@calvin.edu" asa@calvin.edu
> >
> > > Received: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 2:03 AM
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Read what Teilhard actually says about it. He makes the point that the
> >
> > type of
> >
> > > union Paul speaks of in I Cor.12 doesn't wipe out individuality but
> >
> > > intensifies it. He says that union "differentiates,"
> >
> > "personalizes," and "creates." (Sorry I don't have the
> >
> > > refs here.) Have you ever had the experience of knowing someone who
> >
> > seemed to
> >
> > > be just a boring nonentity until you had a chance to observe him/her with
> >
> > family
> >
> > > or friends and see the person really come alive?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > & Teilhard distinguishes in several essays between his view of the
> >
> > human
> >
> > > future & the type of picture one has in Buddhism.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > & when all is said and done, what are we to do with the Pauline
> >
> > picture of
> >
> > > the Body of Christ? Maybe we should take it seriously. It is not just an
> >
> > > abstract idea of unification but a picture of a corporate entity of which
> >
> > Christ
> >
> > > is the head - i.e., the source of life.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > ---- David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > George -- not sure where you're going with the "corporate
> >
> > entity" idea.
> >
> > > While there's a corporateness to our eschatological future, it seems
> >
> > > hard, and dangerous, to suggest that there isn't also an ongoing
> >
> > > preservation of individual identity. To me, this is where the "omega
> >
> > point"
> >
> > > starts to sound just like Buddhism.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > David W. Opderbeck
> >
> > > > Associate Professor of Law
> >
> > > > Seton Hall University Law School
> >
> > > > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your
> >
> > favourite sites. Download it now at
> >
> > http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> >
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > [http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/ca/iotg_search.jpg]Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now! <http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/>
>
>
>
> 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.
Received on Mon Feb 2 16:42:42 2009