The troubled dialogue between Wendee and Bryan raises a philosophical
question about the truth that we seek to communicate to each other. Their
more complete dialogue is at the end of this comment but the concluding
issue on truth I repeat as a quote with my comments for the reader's quick
reference.
>>>> general, they firmly believe that all truth is God's truth. They want
>>>> the truth, even if it 'hurts' their present religious views; even if it
Is all truth God's truth? What do we mean when we use the word, truth?
Dictionaries get caught in circular reasoning. Is it not better to treat it
as an undefined term and learn its meaning from the context of its use?
This is why continued dialogue is needed to reveal the truth of our intended
communications.
Thus, does God create the truth of our intentions? Surely, humans have the
creative power to create a relative truth. God, of course, would create all
fixed truth. Then, the modifier, all, must imply a fixed truth. Every
worldview has relative truth that is dependent on that worldview as the
source of truth. Metaphysical naturalism seeks to project that relative
truth into the truth of scientific evidence.
>>>
>>
>>> And I also might add that no one human will ever arrive at perfect truth.
>>> One finds that letting go of one's need to absolutely know all truth is
>>> more satisfying than seeking it like a bloodhound, which is a never-ending
>>> battle that will never be achieved. Although I believe there is absolute
>>> truth, one human will never achieve it this side of heaven. Letting go is
>>> half the battle. Loving one another is the other.
Wendee, what do you mean by "perfect truth"? It appears to be the same as
"absolutely know all truth. What is the context for this knowing? How would
you define truth?
We all have a desire to know the truth with certainty, but whose truth is
it? Humans are notorious for pushing their relative truth as God's truth
(such as with metaphysical naturalism). Both science and religion are seen
as sources of truth. Science relies on reason and religion relies on
revelation. Proponents of both sources are often dogmatic.
>>
>> I don't think anyone is claiming to have arrived at or soon-to-have arrived
>> at the knowledge of all truth. So I don't know who you think needs to hear
>>this or why they need to hear it. But it sounds like you are implying that ID
>> proponents are not "letting go" of a desire for knowing all truth. What's
>> wrong with a desire to know all truth? (cf. John 16:13)
Bryan, surely the meaning of John 16:13 needs to be kept in an intended
context. It can not be referring to "all" the truth that exists. Neither
does it imply that all truth is fixed making it accessible to discovery
through science. Some truth is revealed and untestable. We use our personal
free will to create relative truth.
When is it justifiable to use revealed truth in our interpretations?
Intelligent Design is an issue over both discovery of a fixed truth and an
agreement that it, as God, is a revealed truth. Does "all" truth imply both
discovered truth and revealed truth? How about moral truth?
Does anyone really have a "desire to know all truth"? If we are creators of
truth through free will, then God has chosen to limit God's ability to know.
Do humans create moral truth or is it purely revealed truth? Some
scientists do propose the existence of natural morality set by our genes.
In the spirit of truth, Jim Stark
The following is the full dialogue between Wendee and Bryan.
> From: "Bryan R. Cross" <crossbr@SLU.EDU>
> Organization: Saint Louis University
> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:39:02 -0500
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: "open letter to Paul Gross"
>
> Wendee Holtcamp wrote:
>
>> Bryan R. Cross <crossbr@SLU.EDU>
>>> Something I see quite often is the conflation of the scientific question
>>> you mentioned above with the theological question you mention here. They
>>> are two distinct questions. In my experience more critics of intelligent
>>> design confuse the theological and scientific questions (as you and Dave
>>> do here) than do proponents of ID.
>>
>> I did NOT confuse the scientific and theological questions of ID
>
> You wrote, "But I agree with Dave that we are not going to put God in a test
> tube!" Please name one ID proponent who claims that ID puts God in a test
> tube,
> or even that ID proves the existence of God. When you imply that ID proponents
> are trying to put God into a test tube, you are confusing the scientific and
> theological aspects of ID, even though you state that you are not confusing
> them.
>
>
>> In my reading of Dembski, he
>> goes to great lengths to show that ID is a scientific question, and on that
>> I agree. On the other hand, he then turns around and states all these
>> theological things that really have nothing to do with the scientific
>> aspect of ID. That is mixing the two, not I. It is obvious that most
>> readers of ID literature do not divorce the two, or shows like James
>> Dobson's Focus on the Family and other Christian radio shows would not be
>> so rash about putting all these ID people on their shows and conferences.
>
> Is there some rule that people can't wear two hats? That scientific
> observations can never have theological implications? Wearing two hats is not
> the same thing as claiming that ID proves God. As a *scientist* a person can
> claim that there may well be evidence of intelligent design (e.g. SETI). Even
> the naturalist can (in principle) agree. As a *theist* a person can say that
> such intelligent design might be evidence of God's creative activity. Although
> either or both of these claims might be wrong, there is nothing unethical or
> inconsistent with making them. The error would be to claim that absence of
> detectable intelligent design implies the non-existence of God; but I don't
> see
> ID proponents making such a claim.
>
>
>
>> ID proponents almost all attack "Darwinism" and not just the philosophical
>> implications that those like Dawkins draw from it.
>
> The reason for that is because in general they are using the word "Darwinism"
> differently than you are. By "Darwinism" they mean "neo-Darwinism" which
> carries with it [tacit] assumptions of and support of naturalistic
> metaphysics.
>
>
>
>
>> If ID is just science,
>> it does not need to attack *Darwinian theory*. Most science works together,
>> even with all the different scientific perspectives and supposedly
>> conflicting theories. For example, when scientists debate things like
>> gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium in respected scientific journals,
>> after years of research and debate the answer usually ends up NOT being an
>> either-or situation but a melding of the two into a more cohesive
>> understanding of the way the natural world operates.
>
> If Darwinian theory were just a biological theory, then the nature of the
> debate between ID proponents and naturalistic critics of ID would
> (undoubtedly)
> be much more 'normal'. Because Darwinism is quite often used to support
> metaphysical naturalism, there is a clear need to drive (as Phil says) a wedge
> between what science has discovered, and the metaphysics it smuggles in behind
> its discoveries. I think we can agree that Dawkins et al need to be shown that
> their metaphysical conclusions do not follow from their Darwinian premises.
> There is no "melding" metaphysical naturalism with theism. Nor is there any
> way
> of melding an openness to intelligent design by direct action (IDDA) with a
> refusal to admit the possibility of IDDA.
>
>
>> Hence my earlier
>> questions to this list about whether ID and evolution necessarily have to
>> conflict, which the answers tended to be "no." (although you wouldn't know
>> that from Dembksi, he contradicts himself on this)
>
> Where does he contradict himself?
>
>
>>> On June 29 you wrote, "What the heck is this intelligent design theory
>>> anyway. I have heard it used for 4 years or so but have not the foggiest
>>> what it theorizes." In three weeks or so, you have apparently moved from
>>> ignorance concerning ID, to a sufficient understanding to make public
>>> pronouncements of ethical disgust.
>>
>> Yes you are correct. Indeed I have. Students can take an entire semester's
>> worth of coursework in one 3-week summer session. And likewise, although I
>> do not consider myself now an ID expert, I have read enough to be familiar
>> enough to make those comments.
>>
>>> found in various scientific disciplines (e.g. cosmology, biology)." I
>>> suggest you study ID a bit more before publicly making ethical
>>> pronouncements against it. Having studied both ethics and ID myself, I
>>
>> I suggest you not make pronouncements about whether I have enough knowledge
>> and understanding to make comments about ID. I have studied it enough to
>> make such a pronouncement. It is an age-old question whether it is ethical
>> to attempt to prove God through scientific means.
>
> First, this last statement alone shows that, in fact, you have not studied ID
> enough, because you are still critiquing a straw man. No ID proponent that I
> have ever heard or read (and that's quite a few) has ever claimed that ID
> could
> prove God through scientific means. Please cite a reference. Second, what if
> you were the first astronaut on the Moon, and you came across John 3:16 on the
> back of the Moon; would it be unethical for you to infer that this was
> evidence
> for the existence of God? If so, why?
>
>
>
>>> proponents are intellectually honest or not, and will admit when they
>>> are wrong, is not the issue in question (although I believe that most of
>>> them are intellectually honest). The issue is whether the basic ID
>>
>> Well that remains to be seen. If "they" were that honest, they should go
>> through accepted means of scientific inquiry which means peer review and
>> publication in respected journals.
>
> Where only natural explanations are permitted. Yep. That's like telling
> Galileo
> that he must publish his findings in Vatican-refereed journals.
>
>
>>> Only if Christian apologists have pinned God as the intelligent designer
>>> behind certain features of nature. Besides, ID proponents are not
>>
>> Oh and you can be sure Phillip Johnson and other ID proponents have done
>> this, "confused" in the mind of Christians that the "intelligent designer"
>> and the Christian God.
>
> I suppose that in three weeks you have read Phil's books, and thus you are
> justified in making this observation. But, in an case, I beg to differ with
> your conclusion. Phil's main effort has been to point out the metaphysical
> naturalism cloaked behind contemporary science. Of course he personally
> believes that the intelligent designer is God, as do you and most other
> Christians. Therefore, those who believe that the intelligent designer is the
> Christian God are not confused. The relevant difference between you and Phil
> (I
> take it) is not in the *identity* of the designer, but concerns whether
> evidence of the designer's activity can be detected. The confusion (i.e.
> mistake) lies with the claim about detectability. Either intelligent design is
> detectable or it is not. One side or the other is mistaken about the answer to
> this question. If intelligent design is detectable, science per se cannot tell
> us the identity of the intelligent designer; theology is required.
>
>
>
>>> general, they firmly believe that all truth is God's truth. They want
>>> the truth, even if it 'hurts' their present religious views; even if it
>>
>> And now, despite criticizing my use of the word "they" you are presuming to
>> speak for "them" as well? Perhaps you want the truth even if it hurts your
>> present religious view, but then you should use the word you and not they.
>
> I think I know enough of them well enough to say what I said. Obviously I
> can't
> speak for them all. Take my claim as the summation of my own personal
> observation. I have been impressed by their open-mindedness, especially to
> falsification.
>
>
>
>> And I also might add that no one human will ever arrive at perfect truth.
>> One finds that letting go of one's need to absolutely know all truth is
>> more satisfying than seeking it like a bloodhound, which is a never-ending
>> battle that will never be achieved. Although I believe there is absolute
>> truth, one human will never achieve it this side of heaven. Letting go is
>> half the battle. Loving one another is the other.
>
> I don't think anyone is claiming to have arrived at or soon-to-have arrived at
> the knowledge of all truth. So I don't know who you think needs to hear this
> or
> why they need to hear it. But it sounds like you are implying that ID
> proponents are not "letting go" of a desire for knowing all truth. What's
> wrong
> with a desire to know all truth? (cf. John 16:13)
>
> - Bryan
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 25 2000 - 09:54:45 EDT