Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

Richard,
  Thank you for your comments. It's somehow easier to communicate with a named correspondent rather than a nameless entity.

  I'm quite sure that you and I are in very close agreement on these topics. You and I both, I believe, agree on the need for a balance between the arrogance of claiming full knowledge of what God is thinking and the ignorance of not knowing anything about what God intends. You didn't seem comfortable with my particular phrasing of that balance but I sense this is not an issue of substance but of style. I will leave it at that.

 I was disappointed that you didn't comment on my more substantive perspective. Here, too, I suspect you and I are in close agreement. Namely, we can know with a high degree of certainty that God's intention was to reveal himself to us through his Son Jesus Christ and through his Word we know of his incarnation and his death on the cross for us and his resurrection. All of Scripture contributes to this revelation of God in one way or another. In studying any biblical passage, we consider it from the lens of the incarnation and the cross as God's primary intention.

The passages that originally instigated this exchange related to Adam and Eve. These passages are rich in helping us understand our relationship to God, our accountability to him, our sin, our need for redemption, our being in his image, and on and on. I'm sure we are in close agreement here as well.

Where we may differ is in whether, in addition to the primary meanings that God is conveying, there is an additional intent for God to teach us scientific perspectives that would concord with today's scientific knowledge. I would suggest that in determining whether this is the case, we could ask two types of questions. One is what would such teaching contribute to the theological focus of God's plan of redemption. Is such scientific knowledge of value in knowing the plan of salvation or of our relationship to God? If not, then it isn't so clear that God is intending to convey such knowledge. The second question would be the consistency with our observations of nature. Bearing the image of God and his commission of stewardship of his creation, we have been given the power to observe God's works in nature.

With these two perspectives in mind, I think we can confidently state that scientific knowledge is not God's intent for these particular passages.

Randy

----- Original Message -----
  From: richard@richardghowe.com
  To: 'John Walley'
  Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 3:17 PM
  Subject: RE: [asa] Olasky on Collins

  John, et al.

  Thanks for the emails and responses. Let me give some "in brief" responses of my own to Jon Tandy. (His original comments are indented.)

  However, your friend doesn't really offer any positive critique on the subject, "Did God intend the Bible to be scientific textbook, intended to convey accurate information to inform the 20th century scientific community of greater knowledge in their fields of study?" So my question to him is, do you really think that God intended the Bible to be that sort of information source?

  Let me acquaint Jon with the context of my comments (in case it perhaps got lost in the email exchanges). I received an (unsolicited) email from John Walley which had the comments by Randy regarding the issue of (presumably) Olasky's questions posed to Collins and intercepted by the ASA (I assume via World magazine; John sent me the link to the article but I was not able to read the article since I am not a subscriber to World online. The link I received required a membership to read all but the opening few paragraphs). I was happy to receive such an email (as I am with all of the emails I get from John (a good friend) even if I don't or can't take the opportunity to response to each of them). I responded to one numbered item which contained several points by Randy. I am also appreciative of your Jon's comments (even though they seemingly were directed to John Walley instead of to me directly; perhaps because my email had gotten lost in the exchange or for some other understandable reason).

  First, my questions were straightforward and occasioned by Randy's categorical claims to know (among other things) what God intended and what God (or the Bible) meant. My questions were completely fair. I simply asked how Randy got the knowledge he claimed to have. But instead of a direct answer, he suggested that perhaps he should have "done a little more editing" and that he used "more anthropomorphism" than he should have used. That's fine. I'm sure I've written things on which I later wished I had done more editing. But it is interesting that he characterized his own comments thus in light of him introducing these very comments with "we do want to ensure that there is a clarity [sic] of dialog with accurate and fair analysis of all sides."

  Second, Jon now poses questions indirectly to me about what I think God intended for the Bible. This is unacceptable at this point in the dialog. I was not the one who made any assertions about what I thought God intended about anything. Randy was the one who used such language. He is the one who said what God intended. My straightforward question was to the effect "Where did he get such knowledge?" If he now wants to say that he does not have such knowledge (i.e., if this is something that he wishes he could have edited or expunged as an anthropomorphism), then that is fine. But I am not going to take the bait and let someone else redirect the conversation as if my original questions were either unfair or answered.

  Third, it is irrelevant that I did not "offer any positive critique on the subject, 'Did God intend the Bible to be scientific textbook, intended to convey accurate information to inform the 20th century scientific community of greater knowledge in their fields of study?'" At this point, I am under no obligation to offer such a critique. I am not the one who introduced the language of what God's intentions are. So I repeat: Where did Randy get the knowledge that he claims to have about what God did not intend the Bible to be? How does he know what God meant it to reveal? Why (to modify the form of my previous question) should one not dismiss what Randy says God meant as "a certain human interpretation"? How can he know what message God has intended for the text? Where does he get this knowledge?

  How would he substantiate such a position from a theological point of view? Would the facts and observations about the natural world have any bearing in determining whether such a viewpoint is valid, and if not, why not? If the evidence from the natural world isn't relevant to a discussion of scientific concerns (presuming that is what the Bible is meant to be), how can one consider such a position to have any scientific merit? On the other hand, if evidence from the natural world is allowed to give independent testimony, what if such evidence contradicts what seems to be a straightforward reading of the Bible?

  Would it shake his faith if he were to learn that the Bible gives some rather inaccurate scientific statements? If so, I would wish him well and probably drop the conversation, but ask him to come back if he ever has an interest in discussing it further or if he runs into a crisis of faith over such issues, so we can have a more profitable discussion. If he were interested in an open-minded discussion, I would go into some of the questions I posed in an e-mail several weeks ago.

  While all these questions are interesting, important, and relevant to an overall discussion of these topics, they are somewhat premature in the exchange. Perhaps if time allows (and the questions are not rhetorical) all interested parties (and others who might want to join in) can explore them. I am very interested, as a matter of principle, in an "open-minded discussion." Whether such a discussion can take place in these emails, or, indeed, by emails at all, remains to be seen. My experience has been that it is those with whom I am having the discussion that tire of the discussion before I do.

  I hope that all parties will take my questions and comments in the spirit of friendship in which they are intended.

  Regards,

  Richard G. Howe

  Richard G. Howe, Ph.D.

  Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics and Director of the Ph.D. Program, Southern Evangelical Seminary

  Home Email: richard@richardghowe.com

  Seminary Email: rhowe@ses.edu

  Internet: http://www.richardghowe.com

  Blog: http://quodlibetalblog.wordpress.com

  Faculty Web Site: http://ses.edu/Academic/FacultyPages/RichardGHowe/tabid/477/Default.aspx

  "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered." C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: John Walley [mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com]
  Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 9:44 PM
  To: richard@richardghowe.com
  Subject: Fw: [asa] Olasky on Collins

  FYI...

  ----- Forwarded Message ----
  From: Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net>
  To: AmericanScientificAffiliation <asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:49:50 AM
  Subject: RE: [asa] Olasky on Collins

  John,

  If I recall correctly, some of the phrases that he takes issue with may have been suggested in my response to Randy, so I would like to reply. I only have time to respond in brief, but he is right - the statement as written (about the Bible not meant as a scientific text) is an interpretation of God's word, and could seem a bit presumptuous taken in the absolutist sense. If I were to have written to Mr. Olasky (as opposed to throwing out a few comments on this list, where most are already familiar with the various points of view), I would probably have qualified the language more.

  However, your friend doesn't really offer any positive critique on the subject, "Did God intend the Bible to be scientific textbook, intended to convey accurate information to inform the 20th century scientific community of greater knowledge in their fields of study?" So my question to him is, do you really think that God intended the Bible to be that sort of information source? How would he substantiate such a position from a theological point of view? Would the facts and observations about the natural world have any bearing in determining whether such a viewpoint is valid, and if not, why not? If the evidence from the natural world isn't relevant to a discussion of scientific concerns (presuming that is what the Bible is meant to be), how can one consider such a position to have any scientific merit? On the other hand, if evidence from the natural world is allowed to give independent testimony, what if such evidence contradicts what seems to be a straightforward reading of the Bible?

  Would it shake his faith if he were to learn that the Bible gives some rather inaccurate scientific statements? If so, I would wish him well and probably drop the conversation, but ask him to come back if he ever has an interest in discussing it further or if he runs into a crisis of faith over such issues, so we can have a more profitable discussion. If he were interested in an open-minded discussion, I would go into some of the questions I posed in an e-mail several weeks ago.

  Jon Tandy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 17 21:42:00 2009