Re: [asa] evidence for design

Heya Don,

Some responses below.

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>wrote:

> Just two quick responses:
>
> You say, "...Paul [talks] about the work of God being evident in
> nature...."
>
> I respond: Contemporary eloquent atheists (e.g., Hawking, Dawkins) swear
> they see only nature in nature. (So, in Paul's terms, they have an
> excuse.) In fact, for students of science in our day, it's easy to see only
> nature in nature and miss God completely. For one to see God in nature, one
> must give rein to one's spiritual side. These students of science suppress
> that side of themselves. Paul apparently assumed no one could or would
> suppress it.
>

Here I would have to disagree. Even Dawkins will, if I recall right, admit
to seeing 'illusions of design' in nature. I'm not quoting Paul to prove
that atheists do or do not have an excuse - I'm not even thinking in those
terms right now. All I'm saying is that the idea of there being design and
the work of an intelligent in nature itself is not a novel idea as far as
the bible goes.

> IMO one sees God in nature only if one first knows God. If one doesn't
> know God, one can detect spiritual forces in nature if one gives rein to
> one's spiritual side; but such forces aren't necessarily God.
>

Again, I just disagree. That's most evident to me in my following of
arguments over natural theology - the principle objections I read to design
are almost always faulting of design ('I/someone could have done it
better!') or arguments of evil (which, really, amount nearly to the same
thing.) There's very little in the way of arguing that things - and I'm
talking right down to evolution, the processes of mutation, and so on - do
not appear designed, or could not be designed. Even 'need not be designed'
often comes with the unspoken assumption that's hard to justify - namely
that the universe, for whatever reason, just happens to spit out rational
minds and illusions of design left and right.

My chief argument is that, if one takes the trouble to view modern
> civilization as it were from the outside, one can see something in context
> of life's evolutionary history that is totally unexpected from the atheistic
> point of view, namely God. It doesn't require looking spiritually, as Paul's
> evidence does. In this respect this vision of God obtained by loooking
> at modern civilization is like the vision of God obtained by
> contemplating fine tuning, only far more powerful. It is not the kind of
> vision that leads to personal relationship but rather to intellectual
> knowledge.
>
> Atheists probably will not go to the trouble of developing the proper
> perspective. They'll continue to see the pieces and miss the whole.
>

I think we agree more than we disagree here, honestly. I agree that humanity
in particular is extremely hard to justify within a naturalist picture - and
giving a proposed evolutionary history is not a justification. I don't think
one needs to 'look spiritually', though I could admit there are multiple
ways to 'look at' nature. I just think all of them turn up reasons to
believe we are in a universe filled with design.

> You say, "...The potential for good, amazing good, through our efforts is
> possible...."
>
> I respond: The NT as I read it does not support the idea that humans as
> humans can do anything good or great. Humans can do good, but only if and
> when they act explicitly as instruments of the Spirit of God. In other
> words, they do good if and when their actions glorify God, not themselves.
>
> Some of these godly good works are mixed into our civilization and
> contribute to it, but they make up only a fraction of what we see when we
> look at our civilization, and not a very prominent fraction at that.
>
> Don
>

Well, we have different readings then - and that's quite fine. Then again, I
think actions glorify God in more ways than 'I am going to do this now to
glorify God'. Setting up charities for the sake of helping people,
researching cures for the sake of healing people, and so on. The fact that
the tower of babel is told of in the bible - and I think this stands whether
there was something akin to that tower, or if it was closer to a parable, or
otherwise - to me illustrates the alluded-to potentials of humanity.

Now, with all this seeming disagreement - I still find myself agreeing with
you on what I think your main points are. The capabilities of humanity
reflect the capabilities (and actions) of mind. As ever, I am wary of
hubris, but clearly what we are capable of as human beings becomes harder
and harder to square with an atheistic view of the universe.

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 04, 2009 5:31 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] evidence for design
>
> Heya Don,
>
> I'm not saying that the bible gives the only indications of God, or that
> there's nothing in nature that points at God. Far from it - everyone is
> familiar with Paul talking about the work of God being evident in nature,
> I'm sure, and I certainly agree that the arrival of humans on the scene
> alone is enough to point at something more (vastly more) than nature being
> at work in our lives. I think the potential for good, amazing good, through
> our efforts is possible - and again, it was made clear that christians will
> do great (greater?) works.
>
> I'd simply say this: I think the bible indicates the capacity for amazing
> things to be done by humans, both good and evil. We'll do great/greater
> works than these, and we'll also have evil people performing miracles that
> amaze and draw the attention of people. I certainly don't see science and
> technology as evil itself, and I absolutely do see the ability to do great
> things with those accomplishments. At the same time, I think the potential
> for hubris, arrogance, and evil is always present. Yes, good and God will
> ultimately triumph. But frankly, I expect some problems (to say the least)
> along the way, along with abuses of science.
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>wrote:
>
>> Note that when the NT talks about the capability of humans to accomplish
>> things that are impressive by the world's standards, it's invariably (to the
>> best of my recollection) talking about EVIL things. The tower of Babel was
>> also in that category. Yes, the NT emphasizes that evil people and Satan
>> himself impress the world with seemingly miraculous accomplishments.
>>
>> Back in my youth as a "religious fanatic" I made a lot out of those NT
>> references to human evil, to the point that I accused science itself in
>> combination with technology as being either the antichrist or the next
>> closest thing. That's what taking those references seriously will do to
>> you, if you're already in a fanatical state of mind and take every biblical
>> word literally. The NT indeed gives the impression that humans as humans
>> can accomplish impressive things, but those things invariably serve EVIL
>> rather than God.
>>
>> This NT emphasis is understandable when you think of what the world was
>> like at that time: The great human achievements visible to everyone were
>> largely created by idol worshippers and their governments who from time to
>> time posed serious threats to the lives and well-being of the tiny bands of
>> Christians.
>>
>> The thing I'm talking about, in sharp contrast, is in context of billions
>> of years of evolution. For me the current and presumably future levels of
>> human achievement point not to evil but to God. Humans of course have used
>> science and technology for evil purposes, but if we smooth through all uses,
>> abilities and levels of knowledge, bad and good, we come up with what is to
>> me an astoundingly impressive witness to God's hand in designing humanity.
>> As I said before, there is no evidence for devine design in the emergence of
>> life forms down through the ages until you get to modern humanity, in whose
>> collective capabilities and achievements resides overwhelming evidence of
>> devine design. In us God has brought something God-like into being.
>>
>> I claim the NT does not predict or foreshadow this kind of witness, that
>> is, where the sum of human achievements becomes clear evidence of God's hand
>> in designing the world.
>>
>> (What about the spiritual nature of human beings? Isn't that more
>> important than any material achievement? It's more important, but it's
>> hidden from view, so it doesn't make good evidence.)
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 02, 2009 2:47 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] evidence for design
>>
>> Heya Don,
>>
>> It seems to be more than that. Just at a quick glance, 2 Thes 2:9, Mark
>> 13:22, Revelation in general, etc seems to imply that 'miracles' aren't just
>> restricted to believers, much less good people in general. Nor does it seem
>> to suggest that, in those instances, they will remain extremely rare and
>> select - even if the scope remains vague. Though you don't think it's
>> relevant, the tower of Babel seems to imply similar as well. The idea that
>> humanity is not just special as a group, but is capable of some tremendous
>> things by virtue of those natural endowments seems present, at least to me.
>>
>> Mind you, this is an idle thought of mine. But I'm simply not too quick to
>> say that the sort of 'mastery' we're seeing nowadays is something the bible
>> or religious tradition in general gives no clue of us being able of
>> attaining. And I'd agree that what humanity has accomplished does tend to
>> bolster design views (I recall Bertrand Russell specifically citing the
>> then-lack of human achievement as a reason to doubt 'mind' is capable of
>> very much in or behind this universe. I wonder what he'd say nowadays.) For
>> me, the principal lesson of the Tower of Babel is that there is no amount of
>> human achievement that can displace God. We may be sons and daughters of
>> God, but in the end we are forever subservient - no amount of accomplishment
>> challenges God, and what we achieve is subject to God ultimately.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>wrote:
>>
>>> There are several places in the NT that state or suggest Christ's
>>> followers will be able to do great works. Most notable is John 14:12, where
>>> Jesus tells his disciples, "The one believing in me, he also will do the
>>> works that I do, and greater than these will he do..." (literal, stilted
>>> translation). This passage has had many interpretations, which often
>>> conclude--among old-line Protestants, and without any compelling biblical
>>> suppport--that the kind of spectacular miracles we associate with Jesus
>>> and some apostles were intended only for the early Church and are not to be
>>> expected in later ages.
>>>
>>> Any such "works," however, as a rule are quite distinct in character from
>>> the amazing works of modern humans. To oversimplify, the former works were
>>> done by invoking God and were intended to reinforce the good news of Christ;
>>> the latter works have been done explicitly through human ingenuity and have
>>> the immediate effect of showcasing human competence without reference
>>> to God.
>>>
>>> A reason I don't think Gen. 1:26ff is all that relevant to modern human
>>> achievements is that in Gen. 11, relative to the tower of Babel, we hear God
>>> saying, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do
>>> this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them..." (NIV).
>>> Whereupon God stops them in their tracks by messing up their ability to
>>> communicate with one another. The amazing works of science & technology
>>> have largely come through a high level of human collaboration, the thing God
>>> explicitly put a stop to in Gen. 11. So, interpreting Gen. 1:26ff by Gen.
>>> 11, I conclude that God did not have modern scientific achievements in mind
>>> when he instructed humans to dominate the world. These days we're building
>>> the equivalent of the tower of Babel hundreds of times over.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless I firmly believe that God actually did intend at the outset
>>> that we dominate in the way we now do. I also believe that human
>>> accomplishments showcase the power of God whether or not he's acknowledged.
>>> It's just that one can't take much of anything in those first eleven
>>> chapters of Genesis to apply straightforwardly to modern humans.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
>>> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 31, 2009 12:10 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] evidence for design
>>>
>>> I'd have more to say about this, however, one thing has struck me. In
>>> the NT, aren't there multiple places where it's mentioned that humans will
>>> work 'miracles'?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yesterday I wrote: "The witness of the fossils as humans interpret
>>>> them ... is that all results are haphazard in the sense that they convey no
>>>> evidence of having been desired by an intelligent being."
>>>>
>>>> The long and convoluted history of organic evolution gives no evidence
>>>> that an intelligent being was in control. (There is an exception.) If this
>>>> big picture of Earth's organisms contains no evidence of intelligent design,
>>>> why should we expect to find evidence for intelligent design in organisms at
>>>> the microscopic level? ID students have focused on microscopic things like
>>>> bacterial flagella and blood clotting mechanisms. If some being has
>>>> been designing organisms in our world and leaving evidence of it, why
>>>> wouldn't the evidence more readily show up at the macro scale than at the
>>>> micro scale? If there's none at the macro scale, why expect any at the
>>>> micro scale?
>>>>
>>>> Fine tuning of the universe can be taken as evidence of design at a
>>>> different kind of macro scale and has become fairly convincing to many.
>>>>
>>>> But the most convincing evidence that an intelligent being has been in
>>>> control is: us, humanity. Not any old humanity, but modern humanity.
>>>> Modern humans collectively have accomplished such feats of knowledge,
>>>> understanding and control of themselves and the world that no one should be
>>>> able to believe this monumental achievement was not deliberately intended at
>>>> the outset. Arguments from fine tuning of the universe are good, but if we
>>>> can step back from ourselves a bit for perspective, our own collective
>>>> accomplishments should be far more persuasive that we were designed, we were
>>>> intended. There's no reason to think anything arising spontaneously from
>>>> inert matter should be able to gain awareness, understanding and control of
>>>> itself and of the world. Yet it is the degree to which we've done such
>>>> things that is most impressive and convincing. Collectively we have
>>>> become some version of God.
>>>>
>>>> A reasonable conclusion is that God intended us at the outset to
>>>> collectively gain mastery. Despite Gen. 1:26, biblical teaching does not
>>>> seem to anticipate this kind of mastery. The emphasis of NT teaching is
>>>> such that we can legitimately say our mastery has come despite such teaching
>>>> rather than because of it. If God intended that humanity achieve such
>>>> mastery, the NT with its emphasis on sin and repentance, on spiritual
>>>> knowledge of God and humans and on preparation for the afterlife has not
>>>> told the whole story.
>>>>
>>>> An alternative is that what humanity has accomplished has been done out
>>>> of hubris in defiance of God and will receive his condemnation. I suspect
>>>> none of us can believe this.
>>>>
>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Feb 5 03:27:02 2009