RE: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics

"Did you attend that session at the ASA meeting in which Paul Seely, Carol Hill and Denis Lamoureux presented?"

I'm very familiar with the views of Seely and Lamoureux and agreed 100% with them in my last state as a Christian.

"If you take Denis's view out of context, you might conclude that all the ancient ideas were just "wrong" (as you say)."

Denis uses 'ancient science' as a term to describe the ancient view of science that is wrong, such as a belief in the firmament.

"So, I think we have to be careful about what we mean when we say the former theories were "wrong." It's often more true to say that those former concepts were simply less accurate."

The idea of a firmament is wrong. Same with the idea of the Earth being stationary and unmoveable (it is moving 67,000 mph around the Sun), and the universe being geocentric. Lamoureux identifies ancient (and wrong) science and history. But he never identifies theology in the same way, explicitly, that it can be likewise "ancient and wrong" (but he does implicitly state it). Example of ancient theology that is wrong: A literal Adam brought sin and death into the world... something most TE's would say is theologically wrong (all those who don't accept a literal Adam).

"I find monotheism/Christianity to be by far the most compelling and powerful theological "theory"."

I agree that Christianity is the best of all "revealed religions." But I think it makes most sense (in my last post explained), that there is no soul, just consciousness; therefore no afterlife or resurrection.

...Bernie
________________________________
From: Douglas Hayworth [mailto:becomingcreation@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 6:16 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics

Dear Bernie,

Thanks for your honesty. I'd like to share recent thoughts of mine that I think relate to what you've outlined here. Did you attend that session at the ASA meeting in which Paul Seely, Carol Hill and Denis Lamoureux presented? I didn't go to that one, but I did listen to the audio files later, and I wrote about them on my blog:

http://becomingcreation.org/2009/09/accommodating-accommodation/

Regardless whether one accepts a historical Adam (as Carol asserts) or not (as Lamoureux asserts), there is a useful "balance" in the juxtaposition of Carol's and Denis's presentations. If you take Denis's view out of context, you might conclude that all the ancient ideas were just "wrong" (as you say). Carol's presentation emphasizes (and I think Denis would agree with this much) that the notions of the Ancients were "inaccurate" and "imprecise" as a result of their primitive science, but they were not just making things up (constructing complete fictions) out of the blue. Whatever the incidental trappings were, the writers were nonetheless attempting to express the nature of realities that they had genuine beliefs of having encountered. For Carol, the reality includes a historical Adam; for Denis, the reality includes the real experience of the Israelites with a God who delivered them from Egypt (to name what I presume is just one sort of example he would offer).

In other words, just as our science represents our best attempt to describe what we see, so too our theology is our best attempt to describe what we experience in our encounters with the divine. So both are fundamentally based on experiences with reality, and we continually test the theories of both by measuring them against continued observation. So, I think we have to be careful about what we mean when we say the former theories were "wrong." It's often more true to say that those former concepts were simply less accurate.

I make this point because you seem to have decided that Christianity is no longer a viable theory because the 'ancient theology' is "wrong". Yes, ancient theology is incomplete and inaccurate, just as our current theology is incomplete. In this sense, I understand your gripe with the concept of inerrancy (I'm with you there, and I've written about that on my blog too: http://becomingcreation.org/2009/05/inerrancy-is-an-error/).

Here's what I'm driving at: our theologies are not mere fictions; they are theories about things that our observations lead us to believe are realities. So the real question is, of the competing theories (theologies), which one is most likely to be closest to the truth? I find monotheism/Christianity to be by far the most compelling and powerful theological "theory". For example, I think it is astonishing that Abraham would look up at the stars and (totally contrary to his surrounding culture and worldview) would understand that they are part of God's creation, not in fact gods themselves. Likewise, the resurrection and deity of Jesus were astonishing discoveries for the disciples -- things that they came to believe because the empirical evidence (experience with reality) forced them to abandon an earlier "theory".

To come full-circle to Ted's recommendation that you read some John Polkinghorne, this similarity in the way natural science and theology operate is exactly what Polkinghorne describes in "Belief in God in the Age of Science". Creation is orderly, but it cannot be discovered by pure logic; it has to be discovered empirically because it is objectively real (i.e., not dependent on us). Truth about God is likely to be the same.

I hope that helps. I really enjoyed meeting you at Baylor. Here's my blog post about the value of fellowship at ASA meetings: http://becomingcreation.org/2009/09/volleyball-with-astronauts/

Keep in touch.

Doug

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:

I can explain how it ended my faith in Christ. Once accepting evolution, I had to figure out how to integrate it into theology. Lamoureux helped here. There is theology, science, and history in the Bible; and the last two are ancient and they are wrong. But now that I was on that road, I could go further, and say "Ah ha- it is the same case for theology- there is also an 'ancient theology' in the Bible that is also wrong." Of course, no theologian will use the term 'ancient theology' even though they believe it, because it will make them a heretic. So what is "ancient theology?" For one, the sin of Adam brought death into the world. Ancient, and wrong (according to TE's and YEC's). (Your quoted paragraph above mentions 'ancient' and wrong ideas related to theology, only they aren't labeled as such.)

So when I went down the path to determine what theology is 'ancient' (and wrong) and what is 'modern' and correct, I found it all to be based upon superstition (Jesus dying on the cross for sins and rising from the dead).

Another wrong and ancient idea is the idea of the Bible being "infallible" or without error.

So that is how the 'fall' happens. Once you identify errors in 'ancient theology,' and go farther to find out which are errors and which are true (testing it all against philosophy, science, ANE material, history, etc.), it all looks like superstition.

And I'd be happy to answer any questions regarding what I wrote.

That's my opinion. My fall was recent- in the last few weeks- so I'm still sorting some things out. But I held out as long as I could, so I think it is a solid fall.

...Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 21 13:00:47 2009