From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Apr 15 2003 - 15:31:54 EDT
Josh Bembenek wrote:
...........................................
> 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.
People don't actually have to _know_ anything to be "without excuse." If I give
a physics student a text that explains Newton's laws of motion clearly & thoroughly &
the student refuses to study it, reads it carelessly, or completely misinterprets it, &
thus doesn't "know" F = ma, he or she is still "without excuse" for flunking a test on
the material.
But I think that a more profound aspect of this needs to be considered. In the
cultures in which Paul operated, genuine metaphysical atheism was fairly rare - even
"the fool [who] says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Ps.14:1/53:1) represents not
"some kind of dogmatic atheism" but "a 'practical atheism' which tries to elude the
demands which the reality of God makes on man's life." (Weiser, _The Psalms_). Pretty
much everybody believed in some deity or deities, spirit, world soul, &c, whether they
took seriously the implications of such belief or not. Much as we may dislike Dawkins'
views, there's a lot of truth in his statement that Darwin first made it possible for a
person to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
This being the case, Paul's statements in Rom.1:18-21 simply aren't dealing with
the type of ontological or metaphysical naturalism which Johnson et al are trying to
combat. This is _not_ to say that Paul is simply wrong or that his statements are
irrelevant to modern culture, but they force us to see, I think, that the "suppression
of the truth" by modern atheists is more subtle & more profound than a deliberate
rejection of a truth which is consciously known.
> 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."
I didn't mean to say that you were deliberately dodging the question about
Dawkins, Weinberg et al, but OTOH you haven't really answered it. Certainly the
existence of the world, its order, &c can raise questions to which Christian faith
responds. & certainly a lot of people _have_ come to faith in the way you describe.
But we generally don't approach nature with our minds a blank slate. Especially in a
culture still significantly influenced by the Judaeo-Christian tradition even people who
have never been in church (& _a fortiori_ those who have drifted away from it) have some
perhaps vague ideas about God, creation, &c. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd be
surprised if, in your reflections on the universe, you came up completely on your own
with the idea that it had a creator.
> 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).
What I have in mind is his statements in _Intelligent Design_. He does refer,
especially in pp.205-210, to the Incarnation & Chalcedonian christology. (Though he
calls this a "word-flesh Christology," which can be misleading.) But his statements
about the significance of the Incarnation are rather vague & he doesn't mention (unless
I've missed it) the cross (i.e., the "glory" of Jn.1:14). OTOH the idea of the logos as
the agent of creation is quite important for him & he says somewhere (not in this book)
that ID is simply a restatement of the logos doctrine of the Gospel of John.
N.B. I have no problem with his argument that Christ is the completion of
science (pp.205-210): I think Col.1:15-20 is one of the most important passages in the
Bible. But it doesn't at all follow from that that Christ has to be acknowledged
explicitly within science. & if one takes seriously the kenotic character of the
Incarnation, it makes sense to argue that he completes science in a way hidden to
scientific investigation.
> 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!"
Slogans shouldn't be pushed too far, & when I say "Natural theology must be
destroyed" I mean "natural theology" in the sense in which it's commonly understood -
i.e., one independent of (special) revelation. There is (& I'm in large part following
Torrance here) a legitimate natural theology within the context of distinctively
Christian theology, developed by viewing nature in the light of revelation. So I really
should say "Independent natural theology must be destroyed" (_Theologia naturalis
liberis delenda est_?) but that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker as easily!
I distinguish between a "classic" view of natural theology whose proponents
recognize that it is incomplete and serves at best as a preparation for the gospel, and
an "Enlightenment" view according to which natural theology is all that's needed. One
problem is that, historically, the first morphed into the second, & I think that that
ought to serve as a warning.
> 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.
As my father, who was a classics prof, would have told you, I am no Latinist!
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 15:32:37 EDT