From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Wed Apr 09 2003 - 17:57:00 EDT
Josh -
Terry Gray gave a more temperate reply than I did to your earlier post & I
concur with what he said there. My own responses are inserted below.
But first let me comment on one of your statements near the end:
"Not many Christians will take kindly to being implicated as idolaters, it is a
very serious accusation that you are simply suggesting without much clarification."
Of course not many Christians - or anybody else - want to be accused of
idolatry. But idolatry is the fundamental sin, Sin with a capital S which is the basis
of all other sins. That's exactly the point Paul is making in Rom.1:18-31. There's a
reason why the 1st Commandment comes 1st. We don't take kindly to being called sinners
but we - including Christians - are. & some of the most insidious sin operates under
the guise of religion - including religions of nature.
Josh Bembenek wrote:
>
> George-
>
> You know what you wrote, I know what you wrote. I obviously put those
> quotes together for a reason, to focus the point. You did not answer my
> first question, instead you sidestepped the question I posed to you:
>
> The question remains, what aspects of nature do you believe Romans refers to
> as a directive toward God's invisible qualities -his eternal power and
> divine nature for all men?
Paul doesn't specify precisely what aspects of the natural world he means, which
suggests that it's simply the existence of the world. In any case it must be something
which should have been obvious to Paul & his readers of the 1st century. Thus attempts
to bring bacterial flagella, information theory, & other staples of the ID movement into
the argument at this point ought to be quite unnecessary.
> You make two statements that contradict what I see that scripture says
> (which I quoted and which are surrounded with * so you won't feel
> misrepresented here):
>
> *Paul is NOT arguing here for natural theology. He says that people should
> be able to know God in creation but that they distort this knowledge and
> worship idols.* This is the beginning of 2 chapters in which he sets out
> the universal problem of sin. & when he's finished making that case at 3:20
> he doesn't say, "OK, now let's go back and do natural theology correctly."
> Instead he immediately turns to what God has done in Christ. *The attempt
> to know God from nature, independently of revelation, usually results in the
> construction of idols - of which the Intelligent Designer or the God who
> "left his fingerprints all over the evidence" may be examples.*
>
> I then asked: "So which is it, do we know of God's invisible qualities from
> nature or not?" I ask this because the question stands independent of
> chapter 2,3 or the rest. Nothing in your argument about the law or Paul's
> characterization of sin or presentation of Christ nullifies the relationship
> between creation and God's qualities made known to man, your answer does not
> address my question. Let me make myself more clear: Paul specifically makes
> this statement "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because
> God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's
> invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly
> seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without
> excuse." You appear to be contradicting what Paul says. Paul does not say
> Men SHOULD know of God in creation, such that they are without excuse. It
> clearly says that all men DO know to such a degree that they are without
> excuse. This doesn't mean that they should have known, but didn't get it,
> and thus per your interpretation would have the excuse "My fallen nature
> prevented me from getting it." How could God hold us accountable when we
> "should" have gotten it, but by our fallen nature will never get it? Yes,
> for those who reject God, this knowledge, revealed by creation, is
> distorted/ rejected. But God's qualities do not thus become unknown to them
> just because they reject it and follow idols. All of this in no means
> indicates that nature does not reveal anything about God.
There's a lot to unpack here.
What is said here is _not_ "independent of chapter 2,3 or the rest." Biblical
verses have to be read in context. Paul is not developing any argument here for a
knowledge of God from nature, as is shown by - among other things - the fact that he
doesn't return to that theme. His point throughout these chapters is the universal
problem of sin.
People who observe the natural world know the effects of God's creative &
providential action. They do not, however, attribute them to the true God but to
various idols including, perhaps, the universe itself.
Before debating that, ask yourself in what sense Steven Weinberg or Richard
Dawkins, e.g., actually _know_ from their observations of the natural world about God's
"eternal power and divine nature." Unless they are being profoundly dishonest in the
statements they make about their atheism, their suppression of the truth must take place
at a level deeper than that of conscious thought. I disagree strongly with the things
that Weinberg says about religion but I don't believe that he is continually struggling
to keep from acknowledging a creator!
Participation in the common human state of sinfulness is not an "excuse" for
failure to know God, any more than it's an excuse for any other sin. God does "hold us
accountable" for sins even though they're consequences of our sinful condition. That's
why "original sin" is called "sin." This common sinful condition is at it's most basic
level separation from God. Thus it isn't surprising that people in fact do not in fact
know God even though they experience God's power and, indeed, beneficence.
> I'll ask you again, in parts.
>
> What does nature reveal such that men are without excuse?
>
> What part of nature reveals whatever makes men without excuse?
1st, the only thing that is said to be "revealed" in Rom.1:18-20 is the _wrath_
of God as a consequence of the refusal to acknowledge him.
As I indicated above, Paul doesn't say anything here about "parts" of nature.
I think it's simply the existence of the world that he refers to.
> Perhaps a rephrased question would help get the answer I'm looking for: How
> far can we extrapolate from creation to 'God's invisible qualities--his
> eternal power and divine nature--'?
Precisely! How far toward the real character of the Holy Trinity - the Father
who gave his Son for creation, the Son who suffered and died on the cross, and their
Spirit - do we get if we start from our observation of the world and proceed with no
light from revelation? How likely are we to come to think of God's "eternal power" as
being "made perfect in weakness" (II Cor.12:9)?
Or put it another way: Do the Lisbon earthquake, or parasites that devour their
living but paralyzed prey from the inside, or children dying of cancer, allow us to
infer that God is amoral, or immoral, or simply non-existent? If we simply start from
nature, without revelation, why not?
There are no examples in the OT or NT of people who are supposed to have come to
a knowledge of the true God from their observations of the world. It's significant that
there are a number of legends about Abram becoming a monotheist in this way -
significant precisely because there's nothing at all like that in Scripture. In Gen.12
God simply calls Abram - who previously was an idolator - & Abram obeys.
It should be said, however, that what I'm talking about here is starting from
"nature," not "creation." We know the natural world as creation from revelation, not
our scientific study of it. (Of course that's just the point we're debating here!)
> What line has ID or fingerprinters crossed that is unjustifiable and thus
> may be idolatry?
Note that I say "may," not that ID _must_ lead to idolatry. There are very
modest and cautious forms of natural theology which need not be idolatrous. The problem
is that natural theology tends _not_ to be modest or cautious. People think they can
learn too much about God in this way, & that's what's led to a lot of the problems of
Christian theology over the centuries. You can argue from the coherence of the world to
the unity of God - and then have problems with the Trinity. Philosophical theism
concludes that God is immutable, cannot suffer, &c - & therefore has problems with the
claim that God really suffered and experienced death on the cross.
Insistence on the God who leaves his fingerprints all over the evidence is in
pretty blatant contrast to the biblical theme of the hidenness of God. "Truly, you are
a God who hides yourself, O God of Israel, the savior" (Is.45:15) & "It is the glory of
God to conceal a thing" (Prov.25:1). But this isn't just a matter of isolated verses.
In the fundamental revelation of the cross God is paradoxically "hidden under the form
of the opposite," looking completely unlike anything that we expect God to be.
> Secondly, you have not defended the point that ID or "God's Fingerprint"
> concepts may be idolatry. You simply make a claim without defense that is
> not compelling.
See above.
> I am not purposely distorting your comments nor trying to take them out of
> context, I am juxtaposing what you have said for the purpose of asking the
> simple question of "What Does Nature Say?" There are several distinctions
> here, for example what does it say to a non-believer vs. a beleiver? What
> does it say in light of revelation that it does not say without it?
What it says is that it's the creation of the God revealed in the cross. In
that light the fact that God is hidden & his activity is discerned only by faith,
something that without the light of revelation seems to be reason to deny God. In that
light the reality of suffering in the world involved in the evolution of living things
reminds us that God participates in the suffering of the world.
> What
> exactly does it say such that ALL men are without excuse, etc. It is not a
> requirement for nature to say anything about God only in light of
> revelation- it says something to all men, such that they are without excuse
> for turning away from God.
Ok, all people are without excuse - including ourselves. What then do we say to
the unbeliever? Suppose you use the complexity of the blood clotting mechanism to
convince her that there's an Intelligent Designer & she becomes a Muslim. (The
Qur'an has some arguments for God from nature.) What have you gained? Why not talk
about Christ?
> You should take the opportunity to clarify your point, why you find natural
> theology false,
More precisely, it is _independent_ natural theology which is usually dangerous
& often false. I hedge a little here because I think many people who are presenting
what they think is an argument based on nature & reason alone are unconsciously
proceeding from a standpoint of faith. Theology should be, as Anselm said, "faith in
search of understanding," not the other way around.
defend why ID is idolatry, etc.
Again note that I said that it "may be" idolatry. So may anything else in
creation.
> Instead, your first
> approach was simply to use debate tactics and chant Theologia naturalis
> delenda est! and tell me to reread your posts when you avoid answering the
> question. This phenomena certainly would appear to be preaching to the
> choir because you won't go far to convincing others of your view with your
> approach.
Alas, the choir isn't all that big!
This isn't the first time these issues have been discussed here, & I kind of
slipped into the unwarranted assumption that everyone should be familiar with what I'd
said in past debates, an error for which I apologize. As far as clarifying my views are
concerned, it may be helpful to note that I've been trying to do that for about the past
20 years. A number of articles dealing with these issues are listed on my website &
some have been published in Perspectives. The most recent thing there is ""Chiasmic
Cosmology and Creation's Functional Integrity" in _Perspectives on Science and Christian
Faith_ 53, 7, 2001. Later this year my book _The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross_ will
be published by Trinity Press International and will deal with these matters in some
detail.
But most of what I've tried to say is not simply a negative polemic against
independent natural theology. We _do_ know the true God from God's self-revelation in
the history of Irsale which culminates in the cross and resurrection of Christ, & in
light of that revelation we can gain some understanding of God's activity in the natural
world.
> Not many Christians will take kindly to being implicated as
> idolaters, it is a very serious accusation that you are simply suggesting
> without much clarification.
See my comments at the beginning.
>
> "God's presence & activity in nature is to be perceived by viewing
> scientific discoveries in the light of revelation, not by trying to deduce
> it them from scientific data independently of revelation."
>
> Then how are all men without excuse? There is no deduction needed, indeed,
> God has made the case plain.
Then why are some atheists? Because they suppress the truth about God.
But that's sin. Bingo!
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 09 2003 - 17:57:36 EDT