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

bernie asks me:

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> “But Bernie won't investigate them? “
>
>
>
> Why be so judgmental and negative? I never said I wouldn’t study or discuss
> them.
>

Maybe I misunderstood Bernie when he told Ted he is not interested in
Ted's bibliography. Yes indeed that sounds negative. And it is
frustrating. I'm sorry I am frustrated and impatient.

I've seen a lot of posers over the years. They sound so reasonable. Until
at the last minute when they invite you over to help them with their meth
lab. That literally happened to me and their is a now a police report with
the guys phone number in it.

In Polkinghorne's book (which I myself got just yesterday) he says an
amazing thing. He says of all his points about science and his points about
theology at every point objectors will jump in and argue.
So guess what? He doesn't answer email. He has a guy people can email with
a question and they get together with a committee and decide whether the
question has merit, and they write up an answer and publish it. His book
has 51 such answers in it.

If that is negative, oh well........

Maybe if Bernie were to pick up Polkinghorne's 2009 book on truth, and go
chapter by chapter, answer by answer, and tell the list why Polkinghorne is
wrong...maybe that would be more fruitful? Or for that matter show why CS
Lewis is wrong. Or McGrath. Or D'Souza. Or any of the many other resources
people have suggested.
How about Collin's? Or George and Keith wrote a book too.

Thanks,
Dave C

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> “But Bernie won't investigate them? “
>
>
>
> Why be so judgmental and negative? I never said I wouldn’t study or discuss
> them.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *David Clounch
> *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2009 1:19 PM
> *To:* wjp
>
> *Cc:* asa
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
>
>
>
> Bill,
> That makes a lot of sense. I realize its only an analogy, but software is
> meaningless without the hardware to execute it.
>
> I have been of the persuasion that consciousness emerges from the brain,
> so I agree with Bernie on that one. This is why I speak about the "ghost
> in the machine" theory from time to time.
> Many Christians believe in the latter but don't give any reasons why and
> don't seem to recognize the problems associated with it. The main question
> is how can science study the ghost?
>
> I don't think consciousness arising from the brain *is* eternal unless
> there is some agent that stores the consciousness somewhere or runs the
> consciousness on some other processor.
> That requires, guess what? The very same type of transcendental agent that
> allegedly could explain ID. So, for someone to say consciousness is
> eternal, yet oppose the transcendental agent, well that just baffles me.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave C
> PS At least Bernie is consistent on this. What Bernie is doing, however,
> is limiting reality to the physical. Thats the "materialist's gambit".
> But he goes further. The physical is limited to what humans understand about
> it. As Ted points out, a lot of deep thinkers think that is naive. But
> Bernie won't investigate them? Really? Why then should thinkers who are
> less deep try to answer him? I am really frustrated with folks like
> Bernie. Bernie really does have to try to understand the difference
> between mutation theory and natural selection. He conflates the two. Until
> he "gets" what the difference is then talking with him is a waste of time.
> The very same principle goes in terms of a basic understanding of chemistry
> and reaction mechanisms. You can tell him on the email and he still won't
> believe it. He still comes back with Reactants produce Products like this:
> A + B = C + D and insist the existence of the products C and D tells us we
> know *how* the mechanism worked.
> But thats not true. This is the way he thinks biological evolution is. I
> don't trust the judgement of someone who is making categorical statements
> about evolution when they don't know about these basic questions. Again,
> it can become a waste of time - time that is better spent elsewhere.
> When someone dresses up in a monkey suit and hoots and hollers and makes
> fun of you its a waste of time to try to argue them out of it. The problem
> is it is difficult to tell if this is whats going on or is there really is
> a serious quest here. But, speaking of fingers pointing into a mirror, I
> got my first Polkinghorne book today. I intend to delve into Ted's
> bibliography. If I had the opposite attitude Ted really ought to shun me as
> intractable. That would only be fair. Who could blame him?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:04 PM, wjp <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:
>
> Bernie:
>
> As far as I can tell, emergence solves nothing. Emergence is problematic.
> As for souls, there is no necessary connection between disembodied souls
> and eternal life, indeed, it has long been suggested that there are only
> embodied souls, hence the reason for a bodily resurrection.
>
> Got to go.
>
> bill
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:48:46 -0700, "Dehler, Bernie" <
> bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> > I think my latest awareness came at the last ASA conference with the
> > discussions about the "mind/body" problem. I've come to see the
> > 'conscience' as something complex that emerges from the brain.
> Christians
> > would call it a 'soul' by I see no reason to attach a spiritual entity to
> > it. In Christian theology, the idea of a soul introduces many unanswered
> > questions-
> >
> > What are toddlers or senile people are like in heaven (eternally toddler
> > or eternally senile?).
> >
> > If souls given at conception: how are souls given to identical twins
> (one
> > egg/sperm splits off into two kids after some time) and chimeras (two
> > fertilized eggs grow then at some point combine tomake one person) at
> > birth? Also, Siamese twins?
> >
> > Seeing the conscious as just emergence (and dissipation in old age) from
> > the brain resolves all these questions.
> >
> > No soul -> no afterlife -> no resurrection -> no work of Christ on the
> > cross.
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> > Behalf Of John Walley
> > Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 5:39 PM
> > To: Mark Whorton
> > Cc: asa
> > Subject: Re: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > I contend that the importance of the theological component of your RTB to
> > TE journey was directly proportional to your investment in it beforehand.
> > It was the same with going from YEC to RTB. The more you were bought in
> to
> > all the arguments for the age of the earth, the more you had to unlearn
> > before you could go forward. Inerrancy is the perfect theological
> example.
> > I was never totally sold on that for lots of reasons but maily because it
> > just never seemed to make any sense to me even though I tried hard to
> > believe it to be a good Christian but just never really could.
> >
> > Also, I had only heard of the YEC party line but was never really bought
> > into it so it was much easier for me to let it all go with no serious
> > emotional toll on me. Likewise the same with theology. So I contend there
> > is an advantage to not making an irrevocable commitment if you can't
> > really be sure about it. It just never was that important to me or that
> > essential. This again was providential revelation at least in my case.
> >
> > John
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Mark Whorton <mark.whorton@yahoo.com>
> > To: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com; John Burgeson (ASA member)
> > <hossradbourne@gmail.com>; John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>; "Dehler,
> > Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> > Cc: asa <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 7:51:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
> > Pardon me for inserting myself in mid stream, but I completely agree with
> > George. In my evolution from YEC to progressive creation, I had to make
> > the transition in the context of a biblical worldview. I had to work out
> > the relevant theological issues systematically. Likewise as I was forced
> > into TE by the strength of the evidence and the insufferable insistence
> of
> > John Walley ;-), I had to have another paradigm evolution based on
> > systematic theology. What I am saying is this -- a Christian must
> > integrate what they believe about the world with what they believe to be
> > true about God and His nature. For me this meant that as a Southern
> > Baptist I had to jettison the doctrine of inerrancy as taught in our
> > Sunday School classes in light of a better understanding of what is meant
> > by the authority and inspiration of Scripture. Pure and simple, that is
> > theology. It did not mean that "theology is incorrect" by any means. It
> > meant that I had to integrate the science and my understanding (slight
> but
> > hopefully growing) understanding of God's self-revelation into an
> evolving
> > systematic theology.
> >
> > Pardon me for being so focused on my story, but I think it illustrates
> > the evolution that must take place in a Christian who is actively seeking
> > to learn and grow. Hopefully by God's grace I am making slow progress in
> > that direction.
> >
> > Mark Whorton
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "gmurphy10@neo.rr.com" <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
> > To: John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>; John Walley
> > <john_walley@yahoo.com>; "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> > Cc: asa <asa@calvin.edu>; mark.whorton@yahoo.com
> > Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 12:06:11 AM
> > Subject: Re: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
> >
> > Of course I meant dismissal of theology in general, not of particular
> > theologies. & of course there are bad as well as good theologies. But
> if
> > theology is the practice of faith in search of understanding - or simply
> > thinking about what one believes & its implications - then dismissal of
> > theology in general is by definition anti-intellectual.
> >
> > Since the Christian message involves claims about God's relationship with
> > the real world, any theology that conflicts with what is known to be true
> > about the world is defective, the seriousness of the conflict determining
> > the degree of defect. On that count any theology that insists that the
> > world is young or that evolution hasn't occurred is defective.
> >
> > In fact, what you've been doing in trying to make sense of your faith
> when
> > you take evolution seriously is precisely theology. It's important
> though
> > to have some guidance in such an enterprise, & the theological tradition
> > can help with that (though it's not infallible). & part of the process
> is
> > separating the wheat from the chaff.
> >
> > C.S. Lewis described a talk on theology he'd given to some men in the
> RAF,
> > after which one man stood up and said that all that armchair stuff was
> all
> > very well for intellectuals but that he'd known the presence of God when
> > he was out in the desert at night without any of that formal theology.
> > (It's been awhile since I read this so I may not have the details right
> > but that's the gist of it.) Lewis replied that he had no doubt that the
> > man had had such experiences. But how far would they take a person?
> It's
> > a bit like what you need if you're going to sail the Atlantic from Europe
> > to America, he said. Of course nautical charts wouldn't give you any
> > sense of what it would be like to be out on the ocean in a boat. But
> > feelings wouldn't get you from Portsmouth to New York and a nautical
> chart
> > could.
> >
> > Shalom,
> > George
> >
>
> > ---- John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com<mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>>
>
> > wrote:
> >> > Any dismissal of theology amounts to an endorsement of an
> > anti-intellectual "spirituality."
> >
> >
> > George, my only response to this is that from my laymen's perspective, I
> > look around and see that the theology that I have been exposed to, at
> > least in the evangelical church, amounts to primarily YEC and maybe PC,
> > with a sprinkling of ID thrown in, but all united in bashing evolution
> and
> > science. I don't have a lot of confidence in the usefulness of of at
> least
> > that theology seeing what a bang up job it did for them and the resulting
> > stellar influence they have on intellectuals in our culture. I had to
> > divorce myself from all of it to find truth on my own in TE through my
> own
> > studies and here on the ASA list, with little help from theology. If that
> > is anti-intellectual "spirituality" then I am guilty as charged.
> >
> > But in contrast, my friend Richard Howe and his brother, both PhD
> seminary
> > professors and one fluent in Hebrew, both well read and educated in
> > theology and quite proud of their particular brand of it and at the top
> of
> > the heap in evangelicalism, but militant YECs to the core, are they the
> > fruits of studying theology and the exemplar representatives of it you
> are
> > referring to? I don't think so.
> >
> > I don't think theology is the secret formula to truth or a pre or post
> > requisite, I think it is "spiritual" discernment which is in turn the
> > result of revelation. That is what Peter had and all the first century
> > Christians. Anti-intellectual, maybe, but I contend it has served me
> > better than theology has compared to most of the people I have met.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
>
> > From: "gmurphy10@neo.rr.com<mailto:gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>"
> > <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com<mailto:gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>>
> > To: John Burgeson (ASA member)
>
> > <hossradbourne@gmail.com<mailto:hossradbourne@gmail.com>>; John Walley
> > <john_walley@yahoo.com<mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>>; "Dehler, Bernie"
> > <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
> > Cc: asa <asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
> > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:20:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
> >
> > Granted that our theologies are at best imperfect & may even be
> > "impertinent." But theology is essentilally an attempt to understand
> what
> > we believe and its implications. We are, after all, to love God with all
> > our mind as well as heart, soul & strength. Any dismissal of theology
> > amounts to an endorsement of an anti-intellectual "spirituality."
> >
> > Shalom,
> > George
> >
> >
> >
>
> > ---- John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com<mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>>
>
> > wrote:
> >> Wow. I really like the SDG and JofA and quotes below. I agree that is
> > what our faith has to be based on, our own personal experiential
> > revelation. Everything else is sinking sand. That is the example Jesus
> > gave us in the NT as well. When Jesus challenged Peter, he confirmed his
> > response by saying that "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you".
> So
> > I contend it has to be today as well. This is consistent with Burgy's
> > comment below. I am intentionally and blissfully ignorant of most of the
> > infinite man-made theologies referenced below, and I don't think I am
> > missing much. It is much more important to be like Peter (and JofA) and
> > recognize God's revelation when you experience it.
> >>
> >> I also agree the secret is not to get hung up on #5.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: John Burgeson (ASA member)
>
> > <hossradbourne@gmail.com<mailto:hossradbourne@gmail.com>>
> >> To: "Dehler, Bernie"
>
> > <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
> >> Cc: asa <asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
> >> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 4:25:41 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
> >>
> >> If I understand you, Bernie, you went through these steps:
> >>
> >> 1 The Bible is inerrant.
> >> 2 Some of the scientific atatements in the Bible are incorrect.
> >> 3 Some of the biblical statements about history are incorrect
> >> 4 Therefore the Bible is not inerrant.
> >> 5 Therefore the theology (as you understand it) in the Bible must also
> >> be incorrect.
> >> 6 Therefore it is not possible(intellectually) to be a Christian.
> >>
> >> Do I have it about right?
> >>
> >> I went through points 1-4 myself, some years ago. I did not hang up on
> >> #5 because I had studied enough that I recognized that "theologies"
> >> are man-made, not God-made, and that there are almost an infinite
> >> number of theologies that one can construct from the Bible.
> >>
> >> Theology, to me, is terribly interesting, but not terribly important.
> >> One of the most incisive comment I have encountered about this issue
> >> was penned by Nathanial Hawthorne. . "So long as an unlettered soul
> >> can attain
> >> to saving grace there would seem to be no deadly error in holding
> >> theological libraries to be accumulations of, for the most part,
> >> stupendous impertinence. -- Hawthorne (Preface to Twice-told Tales)
> >>
> >> Another quotation:
> >>
> >> I do not place my faith in writings, nor in creeds, nor in the
> >> statements of scholars and philosophers, but in the living and present
> >> Christ, infinitely beyond any human expression. Soli Deo Gloria
> >> (author unknown)
> >>
> >> "God" is just our name for the devine infinite. It does not define Him.
> >>
> >> Joan of Arc, when asked by the bishops "Do you not believe that what
> >> you call your voice from God is really nothing more than your
> >> imagination?" To this she replied, "Of course it is my imagination.
> >> How else does God speak to us?"
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Burgy
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Burgy
> >>
>
> >> www.burgy.50megs.com<http://www.burgy.50megs.com/>
>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to
>
> > majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
>
> >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to
>
> > majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
>
> >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to
>
> > majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
>
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 22 10:56:46 2009