RE: [asa] Two questions...

"One of the things that I liked about Bob Russell's chapter was that
statement that faith was necessary. You have to believe. This concept is
seen throughout the Bible, and especially in the red letters. If you take
away that, then you have major problems. And therein lies the issue I want
to look at. Science is not about faith. It is not about belief. It is about
cold, hard, objective, factual evidence. I know this contrast has been
presented many times but it's worth it to hear it again, especially as I am
going to take it a step further."

James,

Yes you have to believe and no one is saying that TE or any other form of science faith integration removes that. However in my opinion you have to have a belief system that cannot be falsified and therefore that results in a minimalist form belief. We agree that God created the universe and life and humans in His image and that it was beautiful. Where we part company is on the specifics of how He did so and whether it is provable or not.

YEC's, RTB, ID and others stretch or distort the science to support theological models that leave them with the last word and therein lies the problem. I think it may remain a mystery how exactly God DID create us but it is easy enough to see how He DIDN'T and to rule several theories out.

So instead of insisting on 'Testable' theories that fail the test, I think a better position would be to just leave it at belief where we started and defend its non-falsifiability in the face of whatever science reveals.

Thanks

John

--- On Sun, 2/8/09, James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> From: James Patterson <james000777@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Two questions...
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Sunday, February 8, 2009, 11:08 PM
> There is much of value that you add here, Bill. I like it.
> And if it were
> just the pulpit one were worried about, life would be much
> simpler, and I
> think we could do something like this.
>
> I think the problem that we are struggling with is that to
> integrate science
> and faith (which for all of us means Christianity), they
> should agree (RTB,
> OEC as well as YEC) or be neutral/not incompatible (TE).
>
> Trying to interpret ancient Hebrew, which had a greatly
> restricted lexicon
> compared to our own, set in a culture vastly different than
> ours, that is
> several thousand years in the past...is difficult. Trying
> to determine what
> God is telling us about nature through the Bible in that
> context is even
> more difficult. Trying to get that to reconcile to what we
> (think we) know
> about nature is yet again more difficult.
>
> The reason that we (or at least I) do this, that we
> struggle so with this,
> is that secular humanism and atheism and moral relativism
> and post-modernism
> are ripping our society to hell-bound bits. Evolution,
> while it may be a
> tool that God used, is most definitely a tool that atheists
> are using.
> Meanwhile, Dawkins describes religion as a disease.
>
> We need to figure this out. We need to establish some means
> of solidifying a
> front against the forces of evil. Unfortunately, that front
> line never forms
> cohesively because of the differences that drag us back to
> our own battle
> fronts...with each other.
>
> I agree, the hubris of all is a problem. I humbly state
> that if one can show
> with compelling clarity that a given *minor* doctrinal
> position of mine is
> wrong, then I will no longer adopt it. But there are
> certain foundational
> doctrines that I don't think are or should be
> compromised. Examined, yes.
> But compromised, no. How come?
>
> One of the things that I liked about Bob Russell's
> chapter was that
> statement that faith was necessary. You have to believe.
> This concept is
> seen throughout the Bible, and especially in the red
> letters. If you take
> away that, then you have major problems. And therein lies
> the issue I want
> to look at. Science is not about faith. It is not about
> belief. It is about
> cold, hard, objective, factual evidence. I know this
> contrast has been
> presented many times but it's worth it to hear it
> again, especially as I am
> going to take it a step further.
>
> The degree of scientism (and I don't use that word in
> its purest sense, that
> should be clear from the context) one has vs. the degree of
> faith/belief one
> has affects one's worldview. The worldview is a lens
> which refracts and
> focuses the pure objective data coming into it. It's
> very hard to adjust the
> focus on a worldview, because it is often so much a part of
> you that you do
> not see its focusing activity - it just is. But
> nevertheless - it is there.
> Two people can look at the very same piece of data, see two
> different
> things, interpret it two different ways. And then, when
> that interpretation
> is called into question in a debate - that's when pride
> steps in. And anger.
> And frustration. And *this* further refracts that
> interpretation.
>
> Now, I've recently seen this in sharp focus (no pun
> intended, I think). I
> saw Frank Tipler speak recently on his book "The
> Physics of Christianity".
> He was speaking mainly on the math/physics components in
> this talk - to
> Physics students. He finished his presentation and was
> answering questions.
> There was one student who just didn't want to believe
> in Christ at all.
> Tipler was talking math, and this kid wanted to press him
> on theological
> issues. Tipler was basically in "math mode". He
> stated that he had trouble
> switching to "faith mode" when very deep into
> discussion of mathematics...it
> was as if it required two different parts of his brain, or
> so he thought. I
> agree, as a cognitive neuroscientist, that would be a
> different part of the
> brain. But my point is here...he was more or less switching
> worldviews.
> While they were not necessarily inconsistent, you have to
> view the world and
> the data in it through a different filter to interpret it
> in the correct
> fashion. Tipler handled the young man well, I must admit I
> was expecting him
> to lose his cool and he didn't.
>
> Now this isn't to say that I agree (or understood) all
> that Tipler had to
> say. It just demonstrates my point above. We all have a
> Christian worldview.
> We all have a scientific worldview. The degree to which we
> can use them
> simultaneously varies. The flavor of Christianity varies,
> the degree of
> acceptance of naturalistic explanations for everything
> varies, and so these
> worldview *variants* (which differ along major theological
> and scientific
> boundaries that are intrinsic to our being, it seems)
> greatly impact what we
> see, how we see, how we interpret, and how we relate that
> interpretation to
> others.
>
> While there is no doubt Truth, both in the Bible and the
> book of nature, we
> may not see it or interpret it clearly or correctly. And
> because of this, we
> must have faith that what God teaches us is Truth. If it
> doesn't agree with
> what we see, then somewhere, somewhen, somehow, there is
> human error at
> fault.
>
> Dick, your post will have to wait for tomorrow - it is
> certainly
> interesting. I do want to read your book.
>
> JP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Bill Powers
> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 10:39 PM
> To: Schwarzwald
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions...
>
> I will offer my few cents and experience here.
>
> By way of background, I am not a TE, nor strictly speaking
> a YEC. I
> lean a little in both directions, and understand somewhat
> the motivation
> of both.
>
> For many years, I was an LCMS Lutheran, but now attend an
> LCMC Lutheran
> church. Don't worry if you don't recognize the
> distinctives of any of
> these groups. It will largely be irrelevant to what I have
> to say.
>
> A number of years ago, the LCMS in convention passed a
> recommendation
> that God's creation as expressed in Genesis 1-3 be
> proclaimed more from
> the pulpit. What I suggested was that Six Day Creation (a
> YEC position)
> and any other position (e.g., TE) be considered from the
> perspective of
> sin. My specific suggestion at the time was that we are
> tempted by our
> fallenness and idolatry to doubt God's Word. In our
> implicit or
> explicit embrace of positions contrary to His Word we sin.
> Nonetheless,
> that sin ought to be brought to light, confess it, and
> receive God's
> forgiveness in the Blood of His Son. Moreover, in our
> fallenness and
> depravity our understanding and reason can in no way
> diminish our
> desparate need for Christ's Blood. To no other quarter
> is there safety,
> salvation, and certainty.
>
> It is not important here that most, if not all, readers
> disagree with
> this suggestion. What is important is that what is at
> issue for a
> Christian is not YEC or TE, but sin and its covering in the
> Blood of
> Christ. It seems to me that many on all sides of the aisle
> sin
> greviously with regard to the issue of evolution. They sin
> in their
> hubris. For all those who take a side the issue lies close
> to replacing
> Christ as the cornerstone. It is facile to do this. For
> many the
> Scripture comes as one piece, one Word. To threaten the
> fabric of
> interpretation built up over millennia is to threaten the
> whole. While
> for many who embrace the new context that unity had already
> for many years
> been weakened by tradition. Indeed, there is only now, it
> seems a serious
> process of forging an orthodox TE perspective. It is not
> clear to me, at
> present, whether this is possible. What then? Should we
> discard
> orthodoxy?
>
> My earlier suggestion still seems to me appropriate. A
> Christian is not
> distinguished by a TE, YEC, or any such position, but the
> confession of
> sin and the washing in the Blood of Christ. If TE or YEC
> be raised from
> the pulpit, let it be for the sake of our sin and desparate
> need for
> forgiveness. Let TE or YEC be fought over in other venues,
> as our
> vocations call us. Lest it be that TE, YEC, or the like
> should point to
> different gods or different Christs, I suggest we, like the
> Corinthians,
> bear with our brothers and sisters, refraining from eating
> the flesh
> worshipped to idols for their sake.
>
> bill powers
> White, SD
>
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, Schwarzwald wrote:
>
> > Heya Jim,
> >
> > Some responses below.
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Jim Armstrong
> <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, but you have basically described the
> (difficult? intractable?) lay
> of
> >> the land. Where is it that the reaction to a TE
> view is most evident. It
> is
> >> precisely in the more conservative-leaning and
> evangelical portion of
> >> American Christendom. It is less, or even no issue
> at all in more
> moderate
> >> to liberal-leaning segments, including unitarian
> to be sure, but portions
> of
> >> others as well in Anglican, Methodist, and UCC
> communities, for example.
> >>
> >
> > And my experience is that some TEs (Certainly not all
> - but I'm Catholic,
> > which has in some-to-large part reconciled a TE
> outlook with its
> > conservatism and orthodoxy rather well) don't see
> defending TE as a goal
> for
> > its own sake, but as a means by which to bring a
> hammer against a more
> > conservative christian culture at large. Those
> attempts, in my view, are
> > what many who are skeptical of TE see immediately,
> connect TE with
> > extraneous issues, and draw the line in the sand due
> to it.
> >
> > In other words, if the goal is to defend the view that
> TE is reconcilable
> > with scripture, then make that the goal. But if the
> mindset is 'We're
> going
> > to tell you TE is right, and if you want to be right
> too, you have to
> > sacrifice not only your views on evolution, but on
> original sin,
> inerrancy,
> > gay rights, and these other views, because that's
> part of the TE package',
> > sure, there's going to be a harder. And with good
> reasons too, since one
> > doesn't necessitate the rest.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> This looks to me like the same situation as is
> faced by a younger friend
> of
> >> mine who was raised in and identifies with a more
> conservative portion of
> >> the Christian community. But he is gay. That
> presents an almost insoluble
> >> problem for him. He wants to live in integrity and
> open fellowship, but
> that
> >> has been denied him multiple time in the
> conservative Christian
> community.
> >> He can find Christian fellowships where this is
> simply not an issue at
> all,
> >> but those are all more liberal-leaning (I know, I
> know, ...I don't really
> >> like that term, but it is a useful shorthand
> here...I think). He has only
> >> found unconditional acceptance in the more liberal
> fellowships where more
> >> diversity in perspectives is ubiquitous but
> uncomfortable to him. He has
> no
> >> desire to be a member of a "gay church",
> just a participative member of a
> >> conservative-leaning evangelical church that
> doesn't care about his
> gayness.
> >> My impression, ...it isn't going to happen.
> It's a painful dilemma for
> him,
> >> and for those who empathize with him in the face
> of this conditional
> >> expression of Christian community. But that is
> also the lay of the land.
> >>
> >> In both cases, a frontal assault, be it cloaked as
> ministerial or not,
> >> TE-advocating or pro-gay, is likely to stiffen the
> resistance, not relax
> it.
> >> The responses are coming from a gut response, a
> defense of the faith, not
> >> from a place of internalized reason and harmony.
> >>
> >
> > As a TE myself, I reject the mindset that those who
> have problems with TE
> > are absolutely or even largely not operating with
> reason. And I'd doubly
> > reject the unreasonableness charge against those who
> are not pro-gay. This
> > is pretty much dead-on the sort of perspective that I
> think cripples TE
> > right out of the gates.
> >
> > For myself, when I interact with OECs or even YECs, my
> goal is never to
> get
> > them to give up their views in exchange for mine.
> Instead, my goal is
> vastly
> > more marginal - showing and explaining why I think
> evolution reconciles
> with
> > Genesis, how it interacts with or even works with more
> orthodox views
> about
> > Adam and original sin, and the number of perspectives
> (rather than just a
> > single ultimate one) at work within the 'TE
> camp' as it stands. It's my
> own
> > personal experience, but frankly, it's resulted in
> a lot of fruitful
> > conversation. And if the result is that they retain
> their old views but
> > accept that a TE view is valid (or even not
> necessarily invalid), I
> consider
> > that a great success.
> >
>
> 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 9 11:31:03 2009