Re: [asa] consciousness, ASA article feedback (was: RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics)

Bernie,
To the extent that the creeds and confessions reflect what I understand
from scripture, that is no problem. However, I do not accept everything I
find therein. What Luther was sure of, Zwingli rejected. Both these
leaders were mighty hard on the Anabaptists. They are not all right in
their pronouncements. As for C. S. Lewis, I find him most helpful on many
matters, but there are points where I think he got it wrong. As to
mysticism, I recognize that God can communicate with us and sometimes
does when there is nothing in scripture that would give that message, but
it will never conflict with scripture. When somebody tells me he has a
vision, I am most skeptical.
Dave (ASA)

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:43:30 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
<bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
> Hi Dave-
>
> Since you can't point to even one specific scripture verse to base
> your philosophizing on, then maybe it would be better (more
> accurate) to say you are "creed-based," rather than "Bible-based?"
>
> My contention, despite the claim of being scripture-based, is that
> the TE's I associated with pretty much all weren't Bible-based, but
> what I would term "Christian-Philosophy" based, most notably
> pointing towards CS Lewis as a base (in Francis Collins case, for
> example). When defending doctrines, for example, it seems like the
> defense is centered in the writings of CS Lewis more than the Bible.
> I'm just saying I'm not sure it is accurate to claim to be
> Bible-based for many TE's... based on actual observations.
>
> It seems to me, generally speaking, that when TE's are cornered
> against the wall with a really tough question, the response is
> generally a retreat into CS Lewis and mysticism. The mysticism is
> what gives some comfort when feeling the effects of cognitive
> dissonance... just rest in the assurance that God has all these
> difficulties sorted out.
>
> But why is it that if one thinks there is no immortal soul, all the
> difficult questions are then answered, regarding eternal life and
> the soul (there is none). The only downside is the fear of death,
> for one who is clinging to that hope. As far as I'm concerned, it
> that's reality, so be it. Can we (should we) ignore the truth if we
> think it has unpleasant consequences?
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dfsiemensjr [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:15 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] consciousness, ASA article feedback (was: RE:
> (fall-away) TE and apologetics)
>
> Unfortunately, I cannot respond with one verse, for it is what I
> understand of the entire message that undergirds my philosophical
> commitments. There is a God who exists in three persons is not found
> in
> any one verse. That one person of the Trinity entered time is clear
> in
> the first verses of John, but turns up again and again if only in
> the
> title "Lord Jesus Christ." So long as someone trust wholeheartedly
> in
> Christ for salvation, they are my brothers and sisters, whatever
> else we
> may disagree about.
>
> As the confessions and catechisms from the time of the reformation
> note,
> Scripture is inerrant for faith and practice, or for salvation and
> morals. As Augustine long ago noted, we need to be aware of what we
> can
> learn from the study of nature. But there are beliefs that are
> essential
> to the study of nature which cannot be simply empirical.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:20:00 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
> > Dave said:
> > "The only additional matter that I consider immediately relevant
> is
> > revelation, so that my philosophizing is built on scripture."
> >
> > I think there may be a problem where people claim to have a
> > scriptural reason for things, but they really don't. Instead, it
> is
> > really just logic that doesn't seem to contradict scripture.
> >
> > For example, can you give a scripture reference, just one, that
> you
> > use to "philosophize" with? And since you are giving one
> (supposedly
> > one of many), please give one of the most important or critical
> > ones. Because you said "my philosophizing is built on scripture."
>
> > I would like to explore this idea with you.
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dfsiemensjr [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:32 AM
> > To: Dehler, Bernie
> > Cc: asa@calvin.edu; D.F.Siemens@ame8.swcp.com
> > Subject: Re: [asa] consciousness, ASA article feedback (was: RE:
> > (fall-away) TE and apologetics)
> >
> > Bernie,
> > To reply to your question at (2), it seems to me that there is a
> > strong
> > tendency to scientism, or at least a desire to answer all
> questions
> > empirically. This is essential for science, but is reductionistic.
>
> > On the
> > other hand, a metaphysical approach is without proof beyond the
> fact
> > of
> > consistency. The only additional matter that I consider
> immediately
> > relevant is revelation, so that my philosophizing is built on
> > scripture.
> > This is not the common approach for philosophers. I recall a
> number
> > of
> > students who approached me with a double question: You're a
> > philosopher
> > and you're a Christian?
> >
> > The above also, I think, answers (3). This does not mean that
> there
> > is no
> > evidence for the supernatural, but it is not scientific. There
> are,
> > for
> > example, problems with the claimed investigations of the
> paranormal.
> > There is historical evidence for the life of Christ and his death,
>
> > but it
> > is not unconditionally compelling for his resurrection. This is
> > where the
> > work of the Spirit comes in. But that also is not something that
> is
> > demonstrable scientifically.
> > Dave (ASA)
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:26:50 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
> > <bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
> > > Ted- good idea to discuss that ASA article. I did last night;
> > three
> > > points:
> > >
> > > RE:
> > > "Neuroscience, Theology, and Unintended Consequences"
> > > http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2005/PSCF9-05Siemens.pdf
> > >
> > > Point 1:
> > > It seemed to validate my current thinking. I think the main
> point
> >
> > > of the argument was that neuroscience experts and many modern
> > > theologians now see the soul as emergence, as in a form of
> monism.
> >
> > > There seems to be a beef with this idea and the theologians who
> > hold
> > > it, saying the theologians aren't dealing with some of the
> > > theological consequences, such as the incarnation or
> resurrection.
> >
> > > You mentioned all the Christian deep thinkers on philosophy, but
>
> > > this article seemed to make the claim that they were being
> shallow
> >
> > > (or not diligent) in not looking at all the comprehensive
> > > "consequences" of their positions (RE: Nancy Murphy was
> > mentioned).
> > >
> > > Actually, that was my path. First, I never thought too much
> about
> >
> > > this mind/body issue. Then I understood at the last ASA
> > conference
> > > that emergence seemed logical and was acceptable theologically.
>
> > > Then, trying to figure out how it works, I found it was best to
> > > jettison the whole idea of a supernatual soul (one that lives on
>
> > > after death). Then all the tough questions are resolved! Do we
>
> > > live after death? No. Is our mind different than that of the
> > > animals? Only in degree, not in kind (Darwin said this too).
> How
> > > many souls does an identical twin or chimera have at conception?
>
> > > There is no supernatural soul, so the answer is zero. What will
>
> > > senile or toddlers be like in heaven, and do they go to heaven?
> > > There is no after life, so there's no heaven. One may not like
> > the
> > > answers, but the answers seem clear and logical.
> > >
> > > Point 2:
> > > Here's a question for the author. Article said:
> > > "Contemporary neuroscientists commonly believe that soul is no
> > more
> > > than a set of functions of complexly organized matter, that is,
> > the
> > > brain and its associated organs, affected by the social
> > > environment."
> > >
> > > Assuming this is true, why is it that most believe this? I
> would
> > > like to see this point elaborated. I think this would be a good
>
> > > "learning moment" for those seeking understanding.
> > >
> > > I'm willing to bet there is some underlying logic that makes
> > sense,
> > > and I agree with it. For example, the brain shows/does 1)
> > > intelligence 2) communication 3) shapes culture 4) learns from
> > > culture. There is a feedback where more intelligence can lead
> to
> > a
> > > higher culture, and all this is done through communication. A
> > > positive spiral over time, as long as people don't kill each
> other
> >
> > > in war. The progression of the state of science is a testimony
> to
> >
> > > this spiral going upward, with the pace increasing. And it will
>
> > > continue to rapidly advance, with the only danger coming from
> war,
> >
> > > terrorists, and other crazies/fanatics getting too much power.
> > >
> > > Point 3:
> > > Article said:
> > > "While it is easy to say that the soul survives and will be
> united
> >
> > > to a new body, we have not interacted with disembodied souls.
> So,
> > as
> > > far as empirical evidence goes, there may be none."
> > >
> > > This brings up an irritant of mine when it comes to science and
> > God.
> > > Can science prove anything at all supernaturally? If yes, then
>
> > God
> > > is found out by science, so people can now accept God on facts
> > > rather than faith. But God's game is faith, so he always makes
> it
> >
> > > impossible to prove him in any science. It is as if God wants
> to
> > be
> > > the grand chief of hide-and-seek. Just like in evolution, we
> > can't
> > > find any evidence of God guiding it, because then he would have
> > been
> > > found out, so he has to hide behind front-loading. That's also
> > why
> > > the multiverse theory will turn out to be true, because if God
> > could
> > > be proven by the big-bang, then people would believe on him
> > because
> > > of the science facts, not faith; and God requires the game of
> > faith
> > > to be played.
> > >
> > > ...Bernie
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ted Davis [mailto:TDavis@messiah.edu]
> > > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:15 PM
> > > To: asa; Dehler, Bernie
> > > Cc: D.F.Siemens@ame8.swcp.com
> > > Subject: RE: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
> > >
> > > Bernie,
> > >
> > > I appreciate your willingness to engage these issues. My own
> view
> >
> > > is not fully formed; I don't know exactly what I think, relative
>
> > to
> > > "soul" and the Bible, let alone what I think of
> > consciousness--many
> > > top philosophers don't have a good idea about the mind/brain
> > issue,
> > > either, so I don't feel too badly about that. But, since I
> don't
> > > have a clear view on this myself, I am not committed to any one
> > > model for interpreting scripture, either.
> > >
> > > You call for some focused discussion, which I applaud. How
> about
> > > this. Suppose we discuss this article by David Siemens, who
> likes
> >
> > > to participate here:
> > > http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2005/PSCF9-05Siemens.pdf
> > >
> > > If David wants to expand on any of his points, I'd like that
> very
> > > much. But this could be a starting place. Would you agree?
> > >
> > > Ted
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > $5,000 a Week For Life
> > Publishers Clearing House winner annouced on NBC. Enter now.
> >
>
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=s2CfMiId2_slMQYfakLDmAAAJ1A
> ciFQiSJkHjjzItA8YiGMZAAQAAAAFAAAAAArXIzwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACQGZAAAAAA==
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
 

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 23:59:41 2009