1) I said, "I don't think the issue of theodicy is easily disentangled from questions about science & religion" & I stand by that - if you wish, with the qualification "today." That's not the same as claiming either that all questions of theodicy are due to science or that theodicy has always been as heavily influenced by science as it is today. In any case, theodicy is a fairly hot topic today - note debates not only in connection with evolution but also, e.g., the Indian Ocean tsunami (about which one nitwit Anglican bishop said in effect, "It was just plate tectonics. God had nothing to do with it." Theology at its best!) & when the topic does come up - with or without scientific connections, my approach has something to say & ID-related arguments don't.
2) Of course the "Science acccounts very well for phenomena in the world" doesn't imply "Science has shown that there is no God." Even Dawkins speaks only of science showing that there "probably" is no God. But the 1st statement is taken to mean that there really isn't anything for God to do (Cf. Hawking's "What place, then, for a creator?") & therefore that the God is a superfluous that Occam's razor tells us to forget about. You fail to understand the thrust of that argument & your idea that Laplace's quote serves your own argument is whistling past the graveyard.
3) Often one of the 1st questions to be asked of an atheist is "What God don't you believe in?" Often the answer is some elementary version of the God of philosophical theism. & if that's the case then my response is, "I don't believe in that God either" & we can go on to talk about what the Christian tradition at its best has said about the real God. & if they don't accept that? Then shake the dust off your sandals, say "nevertheless, the kingdom of God has come near to you" and go on to the next town.
Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Schwarzwald
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments
George,
I disagree. A lot more happened during the enlightenment than the growth and development of science - and not every question or argument that could call upon a scientific perspective to emphasize its point would therefore be due to science itself. In the east, buddhists were using the plain appearance of evil in the world as a reason to doubt the existence of a good omnipotent God long before science became an issue. In the west, the idea of the fall may have been an explanation for the evil seen - but there continued to be debate about the nature of that explanation (Loosely, how the event could be wholly Adam's responsibility and not even partially God's, etc). Long before Christianity was on the scene, Epicurus gave his famous quote about the incompatibility of God with the existence of evil. Science certainly played a role (particularly when it came to strict literal interpretations about Genesis), but the problem of God's responsibility in a world where evil exists was longstanding. If anything the enlightenment simply offered a new cultural and intellectual emphasis on it.
As for the other scientific issues, Laplace's quote actually serves my argument. There is a vast world of difference between "science can explain quite a lot without needing explicit reference to God" and "science's discoveries contradict the existence of God, or provide reason not to believe in God". But the problem is that these two claims, with the people I'm talking about, tend to be mixed together and confused. Once it's straightened out just what science does and does not accomplish - indeed, what it can and cannot accomplish - then theism becomes a lot more plausible, a "live option" to speak of, for people who were previously held back by that confusion. I want to note here that I'm not talking about committed, aggressive, nigh-evangelical atheists. They're God's children as much as anyone else, but they'd require a completely distinct approach from what I'm saying here. I'm talking about fairly relaxed, disenchanted people who, when the topic of God is brought up, are more likely to shrug their shoulders or not take the question all that seriously to begin with because of the general cultural and intellectual attitude they're mired in. Here, I have almost zero concern about being able to leave speechless a determined atheist gunning for a prolonged debate. As I've said before in this thread, I'm more and more beginning to think that the New Atheists are a red herring.
As for ID, I should qualify what I mean here. I think ID goes (or should go) vastly beyond narrow talk of specified information and irreducible complexity. Which is why I've argued that TEs in particular should really be turning towards making more positive arguments aimed outside of Christianity, even if those arguments are explicitly extra-scientific (meaning that they are giving arguments or conceptualizations of design in nature and evolution, while at the same time realizing these are philosophical and intellectual arguments, not scientific statements.) At a glance, I do think Behe raises some good points, as well as Dembski. But I also think Simon Conway Morris raises some great points. And Michael Denton. And Mike Gene. And Edward Feser. And John Haught. And more, Christian and not (Paul Davies comes to mind here.) I think the crux of the ID approach can and should go beyond what Dembski and Behe happen to think of things, whatever value their views may have. As I wrote previously, the DI is not needed to make these arguments in in books or articles (whether the particular argument is philosophical, scientific, rhetorical, etc.)
I have to ask, George - what happens if someone disagrees with your view? I certainly could make criticisms, and I have what probably amounts to a dramatically different view of theodicy than you do, while remaining a Christian believer (Catholic, in fact.) In fact I'd have to also ask you.. how would you even approach the group I, and I think Cameron and possibly even Ted Davis, are talking about with your view? Someone doesn't believe in God, thinks that the mere existence of science makes God somehow logically invalid or even impossible.. are you honestly going to open up with talk about divine immutability and impassibility? I don't ask this to deride your view at all.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 9:57 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
Black Forest et al -
1st, I don't think the issue of theodicy is easily disentangled from questions about science & religion. It is largely the progress of science that is responsible for making theodicy a major concern in the west. (If you doubt that, consider the fact that prior to the 17th century the whole idea that God could be called to account for the suffering in the world wasn't taken seriously.) Especially scientific discoveries about the age of the earth & the origins of humanity have made the idea that all natural evil stemmed from the fiurst human sin quite implausible.
But granted, there are other scientific issues. & one of the fundamental ones is that science can account quite well for what goes on in the world with no reference to God - "Sire, I do not need that hypothesis." Atheists reject the idea that God could be at work in the world in hidden ways - reject it quite appropriately if that defense is trotted out only to blunt the change that science has shown the idea of God to be unnecessary. But one of the strong points of the approach I suggest is that the idea of divine kenosis & the hiddenness of God is a natural consequence of the fundamental understanding of God being proposed. Of course that doesn't mean that atheists will accept the idea but that can't fairly accuse it of just being a tactic to cover a theological retreat.
As far as ID is concerned, how effective it can be as an apologetic approach for scientifically informed people depends, of course, on how strong its arguments are. & many will consider them - & I think rightly - not very strong. In particular, I think Behe's whole idea of "irreducible complexity" has pretty well been disposed of. Whether or not one agrees that some interemediate steps toward the bacterial flagellum could be useful for purposes other than propulsion, simply the idea that intermediate steps toward a mechanism for function A could still provide some selective advantage with regard to that function or perhaps to some other function B raises serious doubts about how fundamental the "irreducibility" of any complexity could be. Ken Miller's examples of the possible usefulness of intermediate steps toward a full-fledged mousetrap illustrates that.
I am not, however, opposed to all use of design ideas - but they should be seen within the context of a Christian belief in creation. I.e., to the extent that they are valid, they can be assimilated to the apologetic approach I've proposed.
Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Schwarzwald
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:57 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments
Heya George,
First, a reply about your comments on ID/TE/etc. First, you say 'if evolution is a serious hindrance...' The problem here is, the people for whom science, evolution, and general apathetic/skeptical attitude about even the possibility of God... there are not 'people who I think we may or may not encounter, and should have something ready to say in response to'. Instead, I am saying these are precisely the people we should be seeking out expressly. I think there is great reason to believe there are a lot of people like this in America, possibly in the west in general, and I think these misconceptions and misunderstandings are precisely what they need help getting past. So I think even if your route is taken, what I'm talking about here (Cameron as well) is going to come up. It can't be skipped.
Second, I'm not talking about an exclusive approach. I think we need more than one - people are diverse, after all. That's why I'm actively encouraging TEs to stop thinking only within the church (namely, YECs, etc) and start thinking about the people outside of the church with their arguments. They need to hear about this compatibility (and sometimes, greater than compatibility) between science, evolution, etc as well. They also need to hear about Christ, about approaches to theodicy - but frankly, the people I'm talking about need to get into the position to even talk about theodicy to begin with. "Why would God allow bad things to happen?" is a non-issue to a person who thinks "Evolution and the discoveries of science are logically or similarly incompatible with the existence of any God, regardless of His goodness". I'd agree that ID is useless in terms of theodicy - and to the credit of even the more well-known ID proponents, they seem to realize this too. To paraphrase Behe, he can tell you when something looks designed, but if that something happens to be malaria, that's a different problem.
Now, finally, about your own writeup. First, I'm more than happy for people to think innovatively and freshly about these (and other) topics. I think your article is interesting, without a doubt. But I'm going to emphasize something I said above: For some people, and I'd say a good number, theodicy is not and will not be a question until they get past the fundamental misunderstandings of 'God and science' and 'God and evolution'. Theodicy -will- become a question with these people, most likely, and that's when issues like that will become tremendously important. But they have to first accept that God is even a possibility to begin with. I want to stress here: I think theodicy, and the general question of God's compatibility with evil in the world, is something that must be addressed. I'd go so far as to say that the problem of evil in general is another major issue in the west, and is typically a (though honestly, many times flippant and poorly considered) source of skepticism. I am not saying "My way is best, your way should not be used" or "My way should go first, then you're next in line". Different approaches for different people, as they need it. For the people whose problem is primarily theodicy, talk theodicy. For the people whose problem is primarily science/misconceptions, talk science/understanding. But recognize that the latter are out there, and aren't being approached properly and in proper volume.
Finally, I'm not going to deny that ID is associated with being anti-evolution. I said that in my last response to Cameron, I believe, and I think it's something that needs to be worked on - and something TEs can and should assist with. Don't like the way the DI approaches things? Fantastic - you don't have to take their approach. Take your own. Write books, write articles - "Fitness of the Cosmos for Life" was a bit too academic and unknown for the people I'm thinking about, but a great starting example of what I think TEs are capable of, and what is needed from them. TEs don't need the DI's approval to write on such topics. I hope they don't think they need the NCSE's approval either.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:22 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
Cameron et al -
You're right that I don't "say that *all* language in the Bible and tradition which speaks of God and creation in terms of power, wisdom, etc., is false and inappropriate." The question, however, is where we should start. & as I said here recently - & for that matter have said often - I do not claim that the what I've called the "classic" view of natural theology (i.e., essentially what you espouse) is absolutely wrong. It is, however, dangerous. Thinking that we first find God in the beautiful, orderly, powerful things of the world is a very natural temptation because it means that we're picturing God to be the kind of deity we would be if we could be God. & even if one moves on from there to understand the necessity of the cross, the fundamental picture of God is still likely (not necessary but likely) to be the immutable, impassible God of philosophical theism.
The theology of the cross insists that we start with the cross and recognize it as the cross of God. It doesn't end there & indeed talks about the resurrection of the crucified One, but it is meaningless to talk about that - unless we really have come to see that he was crucified & in fact as the risen one is still the crucified. ("Then he showed them his hands and his side.) & this is true of other indications of God's power.
I also want to repeat - & no one in this thread had commented on this - that I have proposed an alternate apologetic in http://www..asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF9-00Murphy.html . I am not suggesting that we just leave atheists & other non-Christians alone but that we present them with the real thing rather than a cheap substitute which eventually has to be corrected anyway. The question I pose to the approach you & Schwarzwald suggest is, in the words of that old 50s commercial for (I think) Vitalis, "Are you still using that greasy kid stuff." Or a bit more formally, I think of the way quantum mechanics is taught. One approach is a more or less historical one via classical mechanics & its difficulties, Bohr's old quantum theory & finally the real thing with Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Dirac & Feynman. It works but most students are still thinking of quantum mechanics in terms of classical physics, whereas really classical physics is a limiting case of QM. Instead, start with the real thing. (& don't worry if Bohr rolls over in his grave.)
On your comments about the merits of ID vs TE as an apologetic. I don't see TE as an eseentially apologetic tool. Of course if evolution is a serious hindrance to belief for the person you're talking to then you need to discuss how it can be coherent with the faith. But ID isn't particularly helpful there. (Whether you like it or not, it's strongly associated with opposition to evolution.) & if the problem the person has is theodicy - how can a supposedly loving God create via this process? - ID is as good as useless, whereas the approach I suggest, in terms of the theology of the cross, has, I think, a very strong way of dealing with that concern.
Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Cameron Wybrow
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments
George, Schwarzwald, et al.:
I tend to agree with Schwarzwald. There is no "risk-free" approach. There is no evangelical "technique" which can guarantee that anyone will believe in the "right" kind of Christian God (whether that God be the kenotic, suffering Christ of George Murphy, or the sovereign, irresistible, inscrutable, predestining Will believed in by many Calvinists).
Yes, it's possible that certain ideas of God that a person might adopt (perhaps, say, a God who is identified exclusively with will, power and victory) may make it difficult later on for that person to accept many forms of Christianity (in which God is thought of in terms of submission, weakness, and humiliation). On the other hand, unless the Christian God of kenosis and humility is *entirely* different from the Creator-God of power, will, intelligence, etc., there will be *some* overlap between the God inferred from nature and the suffering God. I don't think that even George Murphy, with his emphasis on the self-emptying aspect of God, would say that *all* language in the Bible and tradition which speaks of God and creation in terms of power, wisdom, etc., is false and inappropriate. I do not think he could say this, and remain, as I believe he intends to remain, within the tradition of historic Christianity, with its emphasis on the Bible, the Fathers, the Creeds, the Trinity, etc. Thus, I think there exists a "bridge theology" between those who are Deists, Jews, and Christians, a sort of minimalist theology acknowledging the existence of an intelligent power which has given rational form to the world. I cannot see what harm such a minimalist theology can do, as long as no one supposes that it is a full or adequate theology.
It is true that not "just any kind of theist" can easily move to Christianity. But the theists who cannot easily move to Christianity -- George gives Muslims as an example -- are theists who are "dedicated", so to speak, to *a particular form* of theism. Schwarzwald is talking about "non-dedicated" theism. An example that springs to mind: if you have a motor which is connected with the blade of an electric lawn-mower, you cannot easily use the whole assembly as a living-room fan. Nor, if you have a motor which is connected with the blade of a living-room fan, can you easily turn the whole assembly into an electric lawn-mower. But if you have a motor powerful enough for either job, which has not yet been integrated into the structure of either a lawn-mower or a living room fan, you can put it to either use, by building it into the appropriate mechanical setting. Schwarzwald's theists-in-general are like such a "non-dedicated" motor. George's Muslims, on the other hand, are like the motor which is already encased in the electric lawn-mower and therefore badly suited to use as a living-room fan. However, Schwarzwald is not recommending dragging an electric lawn-mower into the house, setting it up on its side, and using it as a clumsy fan. He is recommending that atheists consider the possibility that there might be such a thing as a motor. Once they are convinced that motors exist, they may also come to believe that living-room fans exist.
Further, even if, once believing in motors, a person should fall in love with electric lawn-mowers rather than living-room fans, what is the loss? Prior to that, the person did not believe in living-room fans, anyway. Similarly, if a person should move from atheism to generic theism and finally to Islam, well, that person was not a Christian before anyway, so there is no net loss to Christendom. And since at least a *some* people who move from atheism to generic theism will later become Christian, then on the whole, the move from atheism to generic theism cannot be anything but a gain for Christendom.
The social relevance of Schwarzwald's suggestion is this: as of right now, there is a whole sector of the population -- bright, well-educated, upper-middle-class, with above average wealth and confidence and social position -- which is effectively atheist or agnostic, whether it still retains a nominal church connection or not. This sector of the population believes that "science" has disproved the existence of a creator God, or that "science" has made such a God a redundant and/or dubious hypothesis. If this sector of the population could be shown that "science" has shown no such thing, and even further, that "science", to the extent that it shows anything about God, makes the existence of a creator God at least as likely as not, and possibly even more likely than not, then one of the huge intellectual and cultural barriers to even considering the possibility of Christianity will have been removed. Design arguments, to the extent that they seriously weaken the "science has shown that there is no God" position, are constructive in this regard. (This is not to say that design arguments can "prove" the existence of God; but even rendering dubious the alleged scientific disproofs of God's existence is a very useful service to religious belief.)
I've probably said this before, and I hope I won't bore people if I say it again: on this front, ID is more useful than TE. The TE message is for those who are *already Christian*, but who do not accept certain results of modern science. The TE message, at least as it usually appears on this list, and even in many of the essays in the *PEC* book, is: "Conservative, Bible-believing Protestants, don't be afraid of science, and in particular, don't be afraid of evolution. You can still keep your Christianity if you subscribe to evolution, an ancient earth, etc." But such a message has no relevance for those who aren't Christian, and aren't particularly interested in becoming Christian. They already accept evolution and an ancient earth and the Big Bang anyway. The ID message, on the other hand, is: "Atheists and agnostics and former believers (who, being Harvard and Cornell grads, or readers of books and blogs written by those grads, have lost your faith), don't believe Sagan and Dawkins and Gould and Coyne when they say that undirected natural processes have already accounted for the rationality of the cosmos and of the integrated complexity of living things. There is a strong inferential case, based entirely on empirical data and reason, that an intelligent design of some sort pervades the non-living and living worlds." The ID message resonates better with the sort of people I am talking about, because (a) it is based on the empirical and mathematical study of nature, which is appealing to such middle-class, science-respecting people; and (b) it is religiously non-threatening, because it does not push the Bible in such people's faces. TE literature, on the other hand, is pious-sounding, with many references to Christ, the Bible, faith, the theistic world-view, God's sovereignty, theodicy, etc., and this scares many middle-class agnostics away. Thus, I think the ID approach, which leads only indirectly to revealed religion, via a generic "natural theology" accessible even to a thoughtful and open-minded agnostic, is much more likely (albeit only in a roundabout manner, and in the long run) to win converts to Christianity than TE is, from that part of the public which I have specified. I don't see why TE proponents should begrudge this "mission field" to ID, since it is not a field in which TE is doing much cultivating, anyway.
Cameron.
----- Original Message -----
From: Schwarzwald
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments
Heya George,
I've already said that, certainly, bringing someone to theism does not guarantee that they're going to become Christian. But I don't think there's a "risk-free" approach to this - absolutely any move you make (including making no move at all) has a risk attached. One has to keep in mind their message and their approach, but at the end of the day do what seems to make the most sense. And I maintain that the approach I'm talking about makes quite a lot of sense, specifically in the west. I wouldn't say it's the only approach available, or that it doesn't have risks, of course. But I'd need to hear more than "They may end up believing differently than we/you do" to reject it, because that's the status quo for this group as is.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:38 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
It's not at all clear to me that a person becoming just any kind of theist is better - i.e., closer to Christian faith - than atheism. From a theoretical standpoint, Christianity is very different from many varieties of theism. It's not without significance that the early Christians were accused of being atheists by the pagans. If you ask many of the people who "believe in God" what God they believe in, you may have to say "I don't believe in that God either." & practically, being a member of many theistic communities (e.g., Islam) introduces constraints against acceptance of Christianity that are not felt by atheists. & even the "mere theist" may have settled upon notions about God that that make it difficult to take seriously the belief that the real God is revealed in a man dying on cross.
Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
----- Original Message -----
From: Schwarzwald
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments
...........................................
George Murphy: I really do believe that you are correct when you talk about there being a danger in making use of mere theistic arguments. However, I'd simply point out that there's danger in just about every apologetic approach - get an atheist to accept the existence of a grand designer or creator and for all you know you've just turned him into a hindu (I'd point out that with CS Lewis, this was apparently a very live possibility early on) or something else. At the same time, I'd consider an atheist becoming a hindu, a panentheist, an idealist, a pagan, or a "mere theist" to be progress. In other words, if we're thinking purely pragmatically here, I'm tempted to take a Pascal-like view - whatever danger there may be in using arguments for mere theism in discussion with agnostics or practical atheists, it's outweighed by the danger/detriment of the status quo being maintained with them. I'll put this again bluntly: I'd much rather deal with a mere theist of just about any stripe rather than the alternative, because at least the mere theist can be expected to take the question of God seriously.
...........................................
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 21 21:25:47 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 21 2009 - 21:25:47 EDT