RE: [asa] Two questions...

Bill said:
"For this reason my non-concordist YEC position is not troubling so much for me. What troubles me is how it troubles others, and how in a day where science has replaced philosophy and theology as the arbiters of what is reasonable and true, they shall faire."

Personally, I feel that if people want to be in the truth, they have to put truth above all else- including love and devotion to God. This is because it may be true there is no God, and one would never discover that, if true, unless they were willing to subject it to the truth.

God says in Isaiah "Come, let us reason together." Therefore, we should never fear that reason will displace faith. And if it does, it is not a faith worth having. God gave us brains, and I think he's proud of us when we use it. I think He would be upset with us if we didn't use the full capacity of our brains, and that includes looking and analyzing the world with the best available science.

The key in considering science is also determining what is true or not, because some ignorant/misguided people report something as science which really isn't. Some science includes solid facts, and some is really vague- hypotheses subject to re-formulation. We will never know the difference unless we look into it for ourselves. Sometimes we have to trust scientists- but only after first discerning their integrity (I'd trust Francis Collins over Richard Dawkins, for example).

I don't know what a "non-concordist YEC" is. Does that mean that one says they interpret the Bible literally yet know it conflicts with science and can't ever be reconciled with science? (For example, thinking the earth is made before the sun because the Bible literally says that, even though cosmological evolution says that obviously the Sun was formed before the earth?) If that's the case, I think the mind has been compromised, and it is the worst form of superstition. Science is very good at demolishing superstition. The younger generation won't put up with that. That kind of faith will only survey in a cult (a small gathering of believers who think they alone have the real truth... my prophesy for the future of YEC'ism, if it isn't already there).

...Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of wjp
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 6:09 PM
To: Douglas Hayworth
Cc: "" D.F.Siemens@ame8.swcp.com; Jr.""; mrb22667@kansas.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions...

Doug:

I think this non-concordist YEC position is closest to mine.
I have always been uncomfortable with Ross' (RTB) position, sort
of like a science-groupie. And although most of my
evangelical friends are close to a concordist YEC position, I have
always attempted to point out the weakness, and sometimes naivete, of
some of their arguments. It should be noted, however, that some who
are very serious about this task are significantly sophisticated
(e.g., John Baumgardner).

However, my concerns have always been more theological (I'm not wholly
comfortable with that word), let's say Christological, than with any
form of concordism.

I am persuaded that Christian faith must always remain in tension with
the world. Hence, any fully successful concordism might represent an
attempt to tear down the wall of faith. On the other hand, the occurrence
of certain historical events are necessary (but not sufficient) for
Christian faith, as such it is evidential, and subject to attack on those
grounds. For this reason I am likewise uncomfortable with any form of
Bultmannian groundless Christianity. Scripture is all we've got.

Like most practitioners of science, I began as a realist. In the twenty or
so years that I've been studying the philosophy of science, I have increasingly
adopted the "received" view, the anti-realist or instrumentalist views of
the vast majority of philosophers, finding Heidegger's the most complex, and
perhaps compelling.

For this reason my non-concordist YEC position is not troubling so much for me.
What troubles me is how it troubles others, and how in a day where science has
replaced philosophy and theology as the arbiters of what is reasonable and true,
they shall faire.

bill powers
White, SD

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 11 16:47:39 2009