Re: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New Atheism

IMNHO there are a couple of things that any Christian who wants to talk about science-theology issues needs to do before speaking or writing about these matters. (1) Have some clear, though perhaps tentative, view about how God normally acts in the world. (2) Have some understanding of what is meant by the term "miracle."

(1) I would urge everyone to read Chapter 12, "God and Nature," of Ian Barbour's Religion and Science, in which he discusses 9 theologies of God's role in nature, tether with corresponding models. (In the earlier edition of this book, Religion in an Age of Science he included an "existetialist" theology, which I wish he hadn't omitted here.) Barbour is clear about his own preference for a process theology but he discusses what he sees as its weaknesses as well as its strengths - as he does for the other theologies. You may not be completely satisfied with any of these views or you may want to combine aspects of more than one - as I do. But having an idea of different options, & some idea about what seems best, is crucial for a theological understanding of evolution as well as other matters.

(2) The fundamental meaning of "miracle" is something that people marvel at, that evokes amazement. Use of the term in that basic sense says nothing about how God may have acted to bring about the event in question or, indeed, anything about God at all. (Cf. Al Michaels' "Do you believe in miracles?" about the US-USSR hockey game at the 1980 Winter Olympics.) There is a

strong Christian tradition that only those phenomena should be called "miracles" that are completely beyond the capacity of creatures & therefore must have been brought about by direct (i.e., unmediated) divine action. But this is a very restricted use of the word. It means, e.g., that if God brought about the Exodus by use of unusual but "natural" winds (cf. Ex.14:21) then we would have to say that there was nothing "miraculous" about it.

There are several ways of thinking about miracles, ranging from that classic view through God's use of extremely rare "natural" phenomena, "coincidences" of varying degree of improbability to God's use of "loopholes" in the laws of physics required by Goedel's theorem. & there's no need to insist that one type of understanding fit every event we want to call a miracle.

Someone on this thread yesterday (I think) suggested that if Ken Miller had suggested a "natural" explanation for the virginal conception of Jesus, Krauss would have said "Then you don't believe that it was a miracle!" The appropriate response to that would have been, I think, "What do you mean by "miracle?" - & then (time allowing) to set out roughly what I said in the previous 2 paragraphs. The primary purpose of this would be to make it clear that there are coherent ways of understanding the virginal conception of Jesus (& other "miracles"). But it could also serve to show not only the superficial knowledge of Christian theology held by most atheists but also the reason why they need to know some theology if there criticisms are to be taken seriously.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; "Nucacids" <nucacids@wowway.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New Atheism

> This is very helpful, Mike, thank you for point us to it. I had suspected
> that there was more to this exchange than Krauss was saying. It's hard to
> develop/defend the "mystery" response in a forum like that, without being
> given the luxury of (say) 5 to 10 minutes of uninterrupted time, and that
> could have been a factor as well. I'm still not overly impressed with the
> kinds of things that Miller and many others say, relative to larger
> questions about science and religion, but if he said what is reported here
> I'm more in sympathy with his answer than I was simply from reading Krauss.
> (No surprise there.)
>
> Here is an excerpt on the miracle issue from Polkinghorne's newest book,
> "Theology in the Context of Science," which I'm reviewing for "First
> Things." It gets at part of what Miller is getting at, according to the
> quoted paragraph below.
>
> Concerning the evidence for the resurrection, P quite rightly says (p.
> 141), "I believe that all truth-seeking people should be willing to consider
> this evidence seriously. I do not pretend that in the end all will turn out
> to weigh that evidence in the same way that I do. There are many less
> focused considerations that will influence judgement about so significant
> and counterintuitive a matter. Those with an unrevisable commitment to the
> sufficiency of a reductionist naturalism will follow David Hume and simply
> refuse to countenance the possibility of the miraculous, whatever the
> alleged evidence. Those of us who are Christians will be influenced in our
> conclusions by what we affirm to be our contemporary experience of the
> hidden but real presence of the risen Christ, encountered in sacramental
> worship. What I do claim is that Christian theology can be open and willing
> to accept the challenge to offer motivations for its beliefs, in the spirit
> that is so natural when that theology is being done in the context of
> science. In that context, detailed historical analysis of the kind that N.
> T. Wright gives in *The Resurrection of the Son of God* is much to be
> welcomed."
>
> In short, P and Miller both confess that reason has its limits; they would
> also say (no doubt) that reasonable people can believe things that reason
> cannot demonstrate. This is true (IMO), but atheists like Krauss don't
> accept the second part, and often project an attitude and tone that also
> seems to reject even the first part (about the limits of reason). What is
> needed here, culturally, is more genuine tolerance for that difference of
> opinion. Religious people are obviously capable of plenty of intolerance --
> often (ironically) directed toward equally religious people who differ on
> some of the details -- but in this particular case I do think it is the
> irreligious people who carry the lion's share of the blame. Philosophers as
> smart as David Hume and scientists as smart as Richard Dawkins differ with
> Hume and Dawkins about matters such as this, and it's incumbent upon
> fair-minded unbelievers not only to admit this but also to accept this.
>
> At the same time, it's incumbent on some of the brighter religious folk
> (I'm thinking of those who write books and articles attacking aspects of
> mainstream science) to see the value of a via media such as that offered by
> Polkinghorne and others -- i.e., to see the value of religious thinkers who
> do not believe that atheists are necessarily wicked (in the sense of being
> any more wicked than religious people) or stupid or obstinate (for not
> seeing or for refusing to see evidence for design), but who do believe that
> theism is a more persuasive metaphysical framework for science than atheism.
> Miller is probably in this category, and Collins also. John Lennox (an
> Oxford mathematician who is now involved with debating atheists) certainly
> is.
>
> A very large number of religious believers, in my experience, find such an
> open-minded approach inadequate -- either inadequate for their own faith
> (they want more certainty than it is capable of providing) or inadequate for
> apologetics (since it can't be used to beat atheists over the head in
> cultural warfare). However, quite a few highly educated believers (such as
> academics or pastors or attorneys and other professionals) do seem attracted
> to such an attitude. I don't think it's a case of "mushy accommodationism,"
> as some seem to think; rather, I think it reflects the way the world
> actually looks to them, from where they sit both intellectually and
> socially. Certainly there isn't anything "mushy" about such a view --
> people like P, Lennox, Keith Ward, or Bob Russell are as smart as any of
> their critics. Nor do I find it "accommodationist" in a negative sense of
> that word, simply to see the difficulty of bringing closure to debates about
> metaphysics: it reflects a reality about ultimate beliefs and those who are
> willing to discuss them.
>
> Ted
>
>>>> "Nucacids" <nucacids@wowway.com> 7/1/2009 5:01 PM >>> wrote:
>
> A helpful update about Miller. Someone wrote:
>
> "Incidentally, I was at the panel where Krauss confronted his fellow
> panelists about the virgin birth, and Miller had an interesting answer.
> Miller said he could just say it's a mystery, in which case he'd be open to
> attack for not being scientific. Alternately, he could discuss the prospects
> for parthenogenesis in mammals, in which case, Krauss could turn and say
> "see, you don't think it's a miracle."
>
>
> 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 Thu Jul 2 13:02:21 2009