RE: the "image of God"

From: Adrian Teo (ateo@whitworth.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2000 - 10:33:44 EST

  • Next message: Jace Anderson: "Re: sensitivity"

    -----Original Message-----
    From: John W. Burgeson
    To: ateo@whitworth.edu; asa@calvin.edu
    Sent: 2/14/00 10:50 AM
    Subject: Re: the "image of God"

    Adrian wrote: " the theologian Berkouwer explained that there are at
    least two
    other ways of understanding the imago dei: as an
    office/responsibility/function, and as a relationship in conformity to
    God."

    That's all very well and good -- perhaps even true. But I see no
    way to approach it scientifically. Such a definition must remain, I
    think,
    in the realm of religious philosophy; untestable.

    Because of that -- an alien from space who looks like, suppose, a fire
    breathing dragon but in other respects behaves as a human being is ?

    To say "not imago dei" is to make an untestable claim.

    [stuff deleted]

    Like most origins arguments -- what constitutes imago dei seems not
    capable of being answered definitively. Or at least with substantive
    agreement.
    ====================================================================

    Yes, what constitutes humanity cannot be tested definitively. This is
    perhaps the most significant point - whenever we try to find a set of
    definitive physical or psychological traits to describe humanity, we run the
    tremendous risk of excluding some individuals. Given our history of racism
    and prejudice, we should reject such attempts. Furthermore, scientifically,
    there is no basis to argue for a clear boundary between one species and
    another. While it may be interesting to discuss whether extinct fossilized
    creatures were human or not, the danger is when we overextend whatever
    criteria we apply to those creatures to people living today.

    God has given us enough information to know how to relate to other living
    creatures (including humans) appropriately. But when it comes to creatures
    that we can only imagine (those of the past, extraterrestrials, and other
    possibilities), I say we cross that bridge when we get there, if we ever do.
    It is simply too risky to even attempt to come up with a scientific
    definition of what constitutes humanity when there is no immediate need to
    do so.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 10:34:19 EST