From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 12:59:17 EDT
G:"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."
J: I actually agree more with the idea that you said elsewhere that the
universe makes more sense in light of a creator than without one. I am not
actually trying to build an entire theology from flagella + romans 1.
Whether or not we *need* to appeal to these things is different than whether
we can and how we should. Also, my question of Paul's education was more to
get some FYI than to pursue a particular argument.
G: "Maybe I missed something in the flurry of posts on this thread but I
don't understand what you mean here."
J:The flurry included passages that state God's omnipotence in nature and
his ubiquitous action in upholding it.
G:"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."
J: From the exact reading of scripture, it appears that they know to such an
extent that they are without excuse. I guess the lack of clarity centers on
what exact degree that entails and what that looks like in the mind of a
non-believer.
G: ....But it affects the argument you made earlier - i.e., ...
J: I think I am slowly beginning to understand your point more fully.
G: 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!)
J: "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.
G: 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?
J: I was not trying to dodge the question. My best answer comes directly
from Romans 1:20, that his invisible qualities have been made plain to them
by God. I can only imagine a more developed answer based from the time that
I was as close to agnostic as possible (for myself) during college. Looking
at the heavens and the natural world gave me a sense of awe, insignificance
and deep perplexity. Are we alone, is there truly a God? Did I acknowledge
the fact that Christ died for my sins? No. But the sheer presence of
nature and universe, from the observations I could make just going outside
and staring at the stars, gave me a choice to either pursue the nature of
whatever could have created it, or pursue a series of philosophical
arguments that enabled me to more fully deny any sense of God or creation in
my understanding of existence. In that seed of knowledge from experiencing
the creation, I think God makes it plain that he is there and that his
hidden and invisible qualities are there. I think to "Not" know it, is to
choose a lifelong act of illogic and confusion to ignore a deep-seated
knowledge plain to the soul (and in whatever way the soul communicates to
the intellect and consciousness.) I think creating arguments which provide
a more rigourous strategy of understanding why existence makes more sense as
a creation rather than an accident of sorts (from first cause arguments to
ID arguments to Romans's statement of being made plain) create a situation
where non-believers must utilize a more difficult degree of distortion of
the truth required for them to continue to deny God. To answer Preston's
question posed to the group, I did see a lecture during my days at TAMU
during which the fine tuning quality of nature was presented. This indeed
impacted greatly the degree of confidence I had while pursuing the question
of "Is God Real?" The balance of the laws of nature require some
explanation, either a rationale such as "It is that way because out of a
multiple universe theory, one will eventually exist that supports life" or
"God is responsible in some way."
G: "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.)"
J: Would you mind elaborating, in light of this, what exact bone it is that
you pick and perhaps give some citations for why you feel Dembski is more
concerned with the "unfleshed word." I have a copy of "No Free Lunch" to
reference (which is where I saw the argument).
G: "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.
J: 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.
G: 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.
J: Great quotes! Now, I don't wish to pursue the argument that nature
*Alone* or with other arguments "proves" God's existence. If this is the
exact form of any argument for which you refer to when you say Theologia
naturalis delenda est, then I do not hold that either. It seems after
seeing your statements elsewhere that we agree largely on how nature speaks
to God's existence. I am however, somewhat still unclear as to what all men
See in Romans 1, according to you.
G:"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."
Again, I don't personally think there is a proof for God. But I do feel
that there is a stronger correlation between the Creation and "God's
Invisible Qualities" than you seem to advocate.
(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.)
J: I certaintly did not mean to suggest such idiosyncrasies. I am too
unfamiliar with the nuances of this issue to speculate so broadly.
G: "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."
J: An extremely wise approach in my estimation. Perhaps you can further
explain your slogan "Theologia naturalis delenda est!"
Perhaps you would be better in saying "Argumentum Sola Theologia Naturalis
delenda Est!"
Forgive my attempt at latin (I don't know at all if this is the right
conjugation). I haven't studied it since sophomore year in high school and
found a word that seems right for "arguments" online just for fun.
Josh
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 13:00:56 EDT