From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 10:29:13 EDT
Joel Cannon wrote:
>
> I thank Don for his thoughtful and honest reply. We all experience
> doubt in different degrees and for different reasons.
>
> While I do not want to dishonor Don's honesty, I would like to raise
> several points related to what he has said.
>
> First, I think that he would acknowledge that needing to deal with
> doubt by recourse to fine-tuning or other "design" arguments makes the
> Christian claim that God reveals himself most clearly in Jesus less
> credible.
>
> Second, the bible and Christian tradition holds that the primary sphere
> of YHWH's revelation is in human history. More particularly,
> Christians believe that YHWH revealed himself in the history of
> Israel, and has revealed hiself most clearly and most decisively in
> Jesus of Nazarath. To be complete, I should add that Christian
> tradition and the Bible also talk about having confidence because of
> through the Holy Spirit (the experience of God).
>
> If God's actions in history and Jesus are the ways YHWH has chosen to
> reveal himself, isn't that the most natural way for us to a) deal with
> doubt, and to b) engage unbelief? If people are going to make a
> decision to accept or reject Christianity, lets make sure as
> Christians that their decision hinges on the proper criteria. I can
> respectfully accept a person saying that she has looked at Jesus and
> decided Christianity is not true. I cannot accept as valid a person
> saying that I have observed impersonal forces and randomness in the
> universe, therefore Christianity is false. Its a logical non-sequitar.
> Perhaps a problem here is that we are too prone to treat Jesus as some
> abstract human figure preserved withing our tidy doctrine who delivers
> timeless truths, and who is largely, if not completely, disconnected
> from the particularities of the Palestinian Jew and peasant who was
> crucified by the Romans as an insurrectionist.
...........................................
I certainly agree with the main thrust of Joel's remarks here but I think some
qualification is needed. We do not learn who God is or God's will for us & the world
from considerations about "fine tuning" &c but from God's revelation in history which
culminates in Christ. But having said that, it is useful & even necessary to consider
the natural world in the context of that revelation. Both as assurance in the face of
doubt & as an apologetic argument it can be helpful to argue that the natural world
makes more sense in the light of that revelation than it does without it.
2dly, any sharp split between human history & the natural world is problematic.
We are only human in relationship with the natural world - not only our immediate
neighborhood but the whole cosmos. (Whether one likes Sagan or not, we really are "made
of star stuff"!) Revelation takes place in human history but that history is part of
the history of the universe, & the primary witness to revelation, scripture, makes
statements about God's relationship with the natural world. That means that our
scientific understanding of the natural world should be taken into account by theology -
something that can be done without trying to make nature an independent source of
revelation.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 10:29:21 EDT