From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 22:52:13 EDT
I'm reading these e-mails and web pages to learn. Knowledge is an addictive
thing. The questions dealt with here are some of the best on the earth. I am
responding to the end of the last e-mail, the comments/questions on
convincing others.
I was in sales for five years. I was successful. I was told by customers
that they were impressed with my knowledge (not many salesmen, even in
technical fields have BSEE and MS degrees), but more so by my ability to say
"I don't know." I further had one customer tell me, "Now, I know it's safe
to do business with you - because we've had a problem and you didn't
disappear."
Infallibility is God's job. Omniscience is as well.
Sermon last week was from I Corinthians 9:19-22. It includes, "to the weak
became I as weak that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men
that I might by all means save some."
Isn't the goal here, "to the scientist I became as scientist?" Which isn't
too tough since that's largely being oneself, in the current company.
There was a lady, once in my past, who was rather a partying sort. We talked
of God and the Bible as they related to real life and she accepted Christ -
but chose to attend a local Baptist Church because they had a large singles
group and she felt out of place at our basically all married church. She
then rejected my husband and myself as bad company because we partook of
alcohol. Which I found amusing, as she never would have listened to me in
the first place if we hadn't had a certain tolerant attitude.
The point: People listen to people to whom they can relate. We all strive
for perfection, but smart people know perfection is false.
Have you heard of the A, B and C categories of Christianity as it relates to
evangalism?
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 7:26 PM
To: Josh Bembenek
Cc: hvantill@chartermi.net; dfwinterstein@msn.com;
jcannon@jcannon.washjeff.edu; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: natural theology (was Re: Benjamin Wiker on ID (fwd)..Fine
Tuning)
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 - 22:48:45 EDT