Bryan R. Cross wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> > The issue is not one of "evidence versus faith". It is, rather, a question of
> > what sort of evidence motivates & is supportive of faith. Distinctively Christian faith
> > depends upon revelation (or "special revelation", though the phrase can be misleading
> > & the concept of "general revelation" is questionable). This is God's activity in the
> > history of Israel which culminates in Christ. Such revelation differs via the "scandal
> > of particularity" from the type of evidence admissible in the natural science, for that
> > evidence is available, in principle, to everyone at all times. Revelation isn't, though
> > we have witnesses to it.
> > Scientific evidence can be relevant to Christian faith and theology when it is
> > viewed in the light of revelation but it is much more problematic (though very popular)
> > to suggest that it can provide any basis for faith apart from revelation. IMO Barth was
> > right in rejecting any such claim for _independent_ natural theology, though he went too
> > far in saying that science was of no relevance for the doctrine of creation.
>
> George appears to claim that scientific evidence provides no basis for [distinctively
> Christian] faith apart from [special] revelation. (Or do you mean that scientific evidence
> provides no basis for faith simpliciter apart from some sort of special revelation?) Is
> anyone claiming that scientific evidence provides a basis for *distinctively Christian*
> faith apart from special revelation? I don't think even Aquinas would have gone that far. I
> have never heard an ID-proponent make such a claim. Obviously some apologists make use of ID
> claims to promote Christian belief, but it does not follow that ID claims provide a basis
> for a distinctively Christian faith apart from special revelation. If evidence of
> intelligent design is detected in nature, no theological conclusions can be drawn apart from
> revelation, for detecting intelligent design in nature tells us nothing about the identity
> of the designer (apart from special revelation). Abuse does not nullify proper use;
> therefore even if some people misuse ID by overstating its theological implications, that
> does not nullify its proper use.
Since you are very concerned that people not be misinterpreted, please note that
I did not say that anyone was claiming that scientific evidence could provide any of the
distinctive features of Christian faith. It has been thought by many people that
experience of the world & reason could provide a basis for Christian faith or
"preparation for the gospel" by demonstrating the existence of God &c apart from
revelation. (E.g., Vatican I.) & that has been a problem in at least two ways.
1) The successes of scientific explanation led (one can already see the process
at work in Newton & it comes to flower in somebody like Lessing) to the idea that a
natural knowledge of God is all that is needed - i.e., to the belief that the
distinctive features of Christian faith (Incarnation, Trinity, &c) were superfluous.
2) Even when that hasn't happened, ideas of philosophical theism functioning as
natural theology, such as the immutability & perfect simplicity of God, have infected
Christian theology and obscured central Christian beliefs in the meaning of the cross &
the Trinity.
It is true that abuse does not nullify _proper_ use, but the problem is that
natural theologies, & design arguments as a part of some such theologies, have a clear
tendency to get out of their proper bounds & do a great deal of damage. & there is a
simple reason for that - the tendency of sinful human beings to make up their own gods
in place of the real God. It's what Paul is talking about in Romans 1.
Those who present ID arguments, especially when part of a "wedge" directed
against naturalism &c, have some responsibility to make clear the limitations of the
argument so that they are not misused. While they sometimes make formal qualifications
to the argument of the type you state, I don't hear IDers going out of their way to
disabuse theologically unsophisticated people of the idea that their claims provide some
independent proof of God.
> > IMO the ID movement would be much less objectionable _theologically_ if its
> > practitioners would say that belief in ID is based on revelation, and that they are
> > seeking scientific evidence supportive of that belief.
>
> That is exactly what ID is not.
> Take SETI for example. Do the SETI researchers base their
> belief that ID is detectable on revelation?? Obviously not. Since an atheist can believe
> that intelligent design is detectable in nature and detected in nature, (i.e. an atheist can
> be an ID proponent) ID is not dependent upon revelation. Is there a theological problem with
> the SETI researchers' belief that intelligent design is detectable in nature? If not, then
> what are your *theological* objections to the ID thesis that intelligent design is
> detectable in nature and detected in nature? It appears that you conflate ID proper with the
> use some ID proponents and Christian apologists make of it.
Your supposed parallel between SETI & ID means nothing: The fact that people in
research program A don't operate with a certain assumption doesn't mean that those
engaged in program B don't. The ID movement, as it exists in the real world, has a
clear religious agenda. There may be a couple of atheist IDers but the prominent ones,
& the ones who get anyone to pay attention to the movement, are theists & are explicit
about their agenda of opposing naturalism, their belief that God acts in the world, &c.
I can't get into the minds of ID proponents & so can't say to what extent their
beliefs which stem from religious upbringings, scripture, &c have influenced their
beliefs in ID. But it is notoriously difficult for most of us, with the best will in
the world, to keep deeply held beliefs from influencing the way we evaluate arguments.
I recognize the theoretical distinction between "ID proper" and "the use some ID
proponents and Christian apologists make of it" but make no apologies for "conflating"
them because that's the way ID appears in the real world & the way it may influence the
people I preach to & teach.
Theologia naturalis delenda est!
George
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 22:21:22 EDT