From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 20:26:02 EDT
Josh Bembenek wrote:
................................
> 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?
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Your 1st sentence is correct - when we view
scientific understanding of the world in light of revelation. But for the argument
you're trying to make from Rom.1 to work it has to be true for all people - the
uneducated slaves & peasants of the 1st century as well as the scholars of the time.
The use of sophisticated scientific education of the 1st century, let alone that of the
20th century, should be overkill. One simply shouldn't need to appeal to things like
modern biochemistry &c.
> "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.
Maybe I missed something in the flurry of posts on this thread but I don't
understand what you mean here.
>
> "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.
This is a critical point. Are you saying that God has simply made these things
known, in the sense that the data is there, or that people actually _know_ not only the
data but also its implications - i.e., the existence of a creator? If the former I can
agree to a considerable extent. If the latter then I think my challenge here is
germane.
> "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.
But it affects the argument you made earlier - i.e.,
> > 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?
> "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?"
My point - perhaps pedantic - was that only wrath is actutally said to be
"revealed" here. (_Apokaluptetai gar orge_.)
>
> 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.
No, the passage 1:18-31 begins with "For the wrath of God is revealed ..."
But as I said, this is a bit pedantic & I don't think our disagreement hinges on it.
> "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.
My 2 rhetorical questions above were in response to your question:
> > How far can we extrapolate from creation to 'God's invisible qualities--his
> > eternal power and divine nature--'?
The attempt to infer God's eternal power & nature from observations of the world
almost always results in a misrepresentation of God's power (i.e., as something _not_
"made perfect in weakness") & often has - especially in modern times - brought people to
the conclusion that God doesn't care about us. (Who was it that made the statement
about God's "inordinate fondness for beetles"?) & the problem here is that these
inferences are being made by sinful human beings who have a strong tendency to imagine
the kind of God they (we) would be if they (we) could be God. So the natural tendency
is to picture God as the Supreme Dictator, the Supreme Philosopher, &c - not the kind of
God who would die for his creation. Again, the problem, is with us.
> "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.
I would just repeat the question about Weinberg, Dawkins et al which I think you
really dodged before. In what sense do they really know of things in the world as due
to God?
> 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.
I was talking here about the broader history of Christian theology in which
(especially in the West) christology and trinitarian theology have been bedeviled by
these problems. I have not seen any evidence that prominent IDers give much attention
to the Incarnation, and especially the cross, in their theology. N.B. I'm not saying
that they don't _believe_ in these but that they don't seem to play a significant role
in their theological statements - such as they are. (But of course IDers don't tend to
talk about theology a lot because - in public at least - they want to maintain the image
of simply doing science or philosophy.) OTOH I haven't read everything.
BTW I know of Dembski's statements about the importance of Christ that you cited
earlier. But it seems as if what really plays a role in his arguments is the
pre-incarnate Christ, the "unfleshed Word." (Again, I'm not saying that he doesn't
believe in the Incarnation & 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.
>
> -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.
Hidden means hidden. God's hiddenness in natural processes isn't a matter of
degree. "What meets our eyes denotes neither a total absence nor a manifest presence of
the divine, but the presence of a God who conceals Himself. Everything bears this
stamp." (Pascal) & while I'm citing Pascal, the following of his is also relevant:
"It is a remarkable thing that no canonical writer ever used nature as a proof
of God's existence. All set out to convince us of it. But David, Solomon, and
all the rest never said: 'There is no void; therefore there is a God.' They
must have been cleverer than the cleverest of their successors, every one of
whom has used this argument. The fact is worth pondering on.
If it is a sign of weakness to use nature as a proof of God, do not despise
Scripture for it; if it is a sign of strength to have recognized these
contradictions, give Scripture the credit for it."
(No, citation of authorities isn't proof. But at least it may be of interest to note
that this isn't just an idiosyncrasy of myself or a few others on this list.)
> "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.
Granted, but evidential apologetics aren't the only variety, & it's far from
clear that this is the most effective approach. I can't really speak from my own
experience here since I can never remember _not_ viewing things from a Christian
standpoint. (But of course how wisely or well I've done that has varied tremendously!)
Arguments from nature have certainly had some effect on my beliefs about God but I start
from the standpoint of faith.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 20:39:14 EDT