From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 14:20:45 EDT
The following is a large sampling of comments and responses:
Joel:
"At the heart of Christianity is the belief that YHWH has revealed himself
most clearly through Jesus. The need to derive comfort from fine-tuning and
holes in evolutionary theory is evidence that this revelation which is the
doctrinal center of Christianity is not so reliable. If Jesus reveals YHWH,
why go seeking solace from fine-tuning? If Jesus needs to be propped up by
fine-tuning or holes in evolutionary theory, he is irrelevant to answering
the question of God's existence. If Jesus is irrelevant to answering the
question of God's existence, Christianity is false."
I think this is a strawman presentation of the argument. I remember Dembski
arguing at length that all truth and knowledge should be interpreted in
light of Christ, perhaps I am wrong about how he laid out the argument. My
impression was not that Christ should be interpreted in light of all truth
and knowledge but vice versa. Thus "seeking solace" is no more than viewing
truth in light of Christ.
Don:
"My faith is firmly rooted in personal knowledge of God. The reason I
believe the Bible to the degree that I do--and I do believe most of it makes
a reliable witness to the revelation of God--is that the Spirit of God
within convinces me of its truthfulness. Ultimately, I think, no one can or
even ought to have greater conviction than what the Spirit provides. I
believe God in fact does not want our faith to rest on any observation of
nature or even any inspired Book but on him alone, through personal
interaction."
Thank you for the very honest and open sharing about faith, I find many
folks who avoid admitting doubts at all costs to maintain the identity of
strong Christian, and appreciate your boldness. I think that there is one
caveat in what you have laid out in that we need to have balance. For
example, Mormons follow exactly the same approach of being spirit led and
are led to great error (IMO). They primarily weigh upon "a feeling of the
spirit" to lead them to what is true and not true. Thus they accept the
authority of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and their prophets based upon
a prayer and subsequent feeling they get "from God." The bible instructs:
Romans 12:2 "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be
transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and
approve what God's will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will." So it
seems that our minds should be transformed by the spirit, but we also need
to use our mental faculties to approve what God's will is. I think both
cooperate to weed out error and identify truth.
Howard:
"( p. 194>ID's use of the fine-tuning argument follows the opposite
strategy. Fine tuning arguments point out (correctly, it seems) that the
numerical values of several fundamental cosmic parameters are "just right"
in the sense that if any of them were slightly different, carbon-based life
(including us) could not have evolved. To say essentially the same thing in
my preferred vocabulary: The values of all cosmic parameters appear to be
fine-tuned to satisfy the RFEP. So, when ID proponents appeal to cosmic fine
tuning as evidence in their favor they are saying, in essence, that a
universe could satisfy the RFEP only if it were the product of intelligent
design. Or, intelligent design action is necessary because the universe DOES
satisfy the RFEP."
There is no RFEP for the creation of laws, constants, and other basic
characteristics of nature. They simply are/ were created. Therefore, there
was no evolution or development of Gravity, it is simply a variable that is
fixed and indicates either 1. The magnitude and behavior of gravity just
happened to be that way by chance or 2. Somebody chose a particular
constant for the purpose of integrating it with all the other constants such
that life is *possible* at all, not necessarily evolved. Does anyone know,
based upon fundamental laws alone, how likely galaxies, solar systems and
planets will be formed? How much form and direction God gave swirling gases
to form planets doesn't seem to be unequivocally answered: None. So, the
existence of the correct balance of ingredients does not logically
necessitate that they mixed themselves in either biology nor astronomy. I
would say that the fact that the earth has a proper balance to support life,
and that the universe as a whole has the proper balance to support life,
indicates that someone tinkered with the variables. That doesn't say in
either case how much tinkering was necessary to get the variables to
form-confer our current status in life and astronomy. Perhaps the proper
variables of gravity, atomic forces, etc. yeilds only fully dispersed gases
evenly distributed in space throughout the universe instead of planets, etc.
without some additional variables controlled/directed/fudged with by God.
Perhaps carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and water mixed in the correct ratios only
produces simple elements/molecules, not complex self-aware human beings
without the addtional control of specific variables (like information
derivation) by God.
After hammering all those ideas out, this simplified version came to me:
Right Way to Paraphrase Argument:
It Couldn't be the way it is without the variables being the way they are,
and the chance of the variables being the way they are is small, therefore
God must have tinkered with it.
Wrong Way to Paraphrase Argument:
Because the variables are the way they are, things have become as they are.
Since God set the variables, he set everything as it is.
Claiming fine tuning does not require that you accept the second view of
origins/creation. Fine tuning is perfectly compatible with the first, and
thus young-earth and a complete denial of the "evolution" of anything.
ID may be credited not for supporting the "fine tuning" argument per se, but
for claiming that information is as fundemental to an understanding of the
origin of biology as gravity is for understanding the origin of planets.
Without God providing Gravity or Information we will have not Planets or
Biological Structures. I hope I haven't reiterated myself, but hopefully
this is clear.
George:
"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."
So our collective knowledge of how God influences our world should not
increase as we gain deeper understanding of how our world works? Paul was a
scholar by the way, what do we know of his science education and what the
romans would recognize as evidence from Creation? Perhaps they didn't know
of microbes and cellular structures, but were they truly simpletons knowing
only of earth's existence?
"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."
I'll allow others comments about the chapters of Job to respond.
"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!"
They know enough about God's "eternal power and divine nature" such that
they are without excuse. Their struggle to acknowledge the creator is not
the issue, the inference from nature to God is. Romans states that God has
made the inference plainly known to all men, regardless of their strategies
and methodology employed during open rebellion and ignoring the truth.
"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."
And none of these issues affects the inference from "creation" to "the
eternal power and divine nature" of God.
"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."
What does it mean that "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?"
What has been clearly seen is not wrath here. Wrath is not mentioned until
later. This is simply how I see it, perhaps you should inform me of how the
subject of what is seen is wrath and not eternal power and divine nature,
specific attributes under the heading invisible qualities.
"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?"
-IMO, not very far. But the existence of a creator vs. the non-existence of
a creator is a HUGE step (more later)!!
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?
Are you claiming that attributes of creation do not actually infer to us
what Romans clearly states? Certaintly these things demand explanation and
understanding, but the do not negate the inference of romans 1:20.
"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!)"
Actually all men know of God's eternal qualities due to creation, not from a
study of it, but because God has made it plain to them. Perhaps a closer
examination of nature and creation will prevent some from trying to deny the
point and ignore God!! The reality is that existence IS a creation,
regardless of what people believe about it. And all men know this fact to
the extent that they are without excuse.
>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.
-I am in general unfamiliar with such extrapolations, and have not run
across any IDers advocating them.
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.
-This may refer us to the degree that we can extrapolate from creation, but
does not argue that there is no exptrapolation from nature to God's
qualities.
"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?"
-A well developed evangelical approach may take both pathways. ID has the
onus of defending a simple point rather than creating a comprehensive,
cohesive christian apologetic. No one demands Lighthouse Ministries or Jews
for Christ to develop complete evangelical approaches toward the evolution
issue. Again, believing that a God does exist is a huge leap from believing
that there is no God (atheists), or that there is no good solid evidence
requiring the decision of faith in God (agnostics.) A muslim may be more
open (and yet dogmatic) about discussing the nature of the true God than
someone who thinks the coversation is useless. Finding Christ was a
stepwise process for myself that I still develop in understanding, so I
wouldn't expect any approach to cover every base imaginable before
disregarded as futile.
"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."
-It appears we had a miscommunication and I apologize also for my reaction
and response.
"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."
Indeed I had the thought that you would do yourself more justice with your
views in developing a well published book than you would "preaching to the
choir." Seems you've already decided to do that! Perhaps a reading of your
views as expressed previously will facilitate this converasation.
Josh
P.S. This is absorbing a good chunk of time so be patient with responses.
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 14:21:05 EDT