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

Again, Bernie, answers are easy to come by. In your example you say these
questions are unanswerable if you believe in a supernatural soul. But if you
don't believe in a supernatural soul (Note: You're not proving the
non-existence of a supernatural soul here. You're stating what answer you
can/must give assuming a belief you have.), the questions are all answered,
or don't get asked to begin with. Therefore, simple.

I wrote another post illustrating the problem here, but here it goes again:
"Only humans have supernatural souls." There. Believe that, and all those
questions are easy to answer. Just as simple, perhaps simpler, than "there
is no supernatural soul". Every question answered - so long as answer just
means "what must follow from the belief, and what truth is not questioned".

The same goes for your evolution example. If you dismiss biological
evolution as impossible, there aren't any problems or mysteries with DNA or
fossils, etc. All of those things become coincidences at best. Unimportant.
Now, if you believe that biological evolution is untrue, and this isn't just
taken as a brute fact or belief, but as an inference of the data to the best
explanation - then you have a problem. But you also have problems,
unanswered questions and contrary logical possibilities even if your
inference is that evolution is true.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> Christine said:
> "Our consciousness, our rationality, our emotions, all of the intangible
> qualities about us (or any animal for that matter) that we call a "soul" are
> not intrinsic to our material bodies."
>
> So if a human, or ape, gets mad and goes on a rampage, that is their soul
> coming through. Is that an example of what you are saying? And you believe
> that animals will go to heaven since they have a soul? Is their soul also
> from God, like the soul from humans? Did Neanderthals have souls, like
> humans? Do plants also have souls? Where's the dividing line between plant
> and animal (Venus flytrap, for example), if animals have supernatural souls
> but not plants?
>
> If one believes in no supernatural soul, all these questions are easy to
> answer. If one believes in a supernatural soul, then these are probably all
> unanswerable.
>
> It is like evolution. If one dismisses biological evolution, there are
> lots of problems (mysteries) with DNA, fossils, etc. But if one accepts
> evolution, all the problems go away. Likewise, I think all the problems
> with 'supernatural soul' are based in the fact that the theology (theory)
> doesn't align with what we observe.
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Christine Smith
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:54 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
> You wrote "No soul -> no afterlife -> no resurrection -> no work of Christ
> on the cross."
>
> That is precisely the line of logic I followed in my crisis of faith two
> and a half years ago, and it almost made me an Atheist. Until, by God's
> grace, He showed me that I WAS WRONG! Here's my story...
>
> My faith collapsed on February 3, 2007 because I got on to some Atheist
> websites where they made precisely this type of argument. They argued, 'how
> could their we anything like a soul when things like drugs and medications
> and such could affect everything we might call "soulish"?' What about brain
> damage they said? What's a "soul" mean in this context, if there was such a
> thing? I had never considered these questions before, and it rocked my faith
> to the core - because I had an extremely simplistic, strictly dualistic
> notion of what a "soul" is. And I had no idea how anything else besides this
> understanding could fit into any theistic context, let alone Christianity.
> On February 4th, I remember I went to the park to sit by a lake, and
> literally yelled at God, challenging Him to strike me dead if He was real
> and He was listening (Mercifully, He didn't). For two months, I flailed
> about somewhere between Christianity and Atheism, obsessively reading
> anything and everything I could about them. I couldn't listen to Christian
> music without crying, I could barely bring myself to still attend church or
> to pray, I questioned what the word "soulmates" meant as engaved on my
> wedding ring. And then, one afternoon on the way to a restaurant, I heard a
> Christian song on the radio: "Resurrection", talking about how their heart
> had grown so lifeless, so cold, so dead. The song deeply resonnated with me,
> and I prayed, once more, that God would help me understand, if He even
> really existed? And that's when it happened - the closest thing ever I have
> felt to pure revelation...
>
> Eating at the restaurant, I happened to glance down at the table, caught by
> a glimmer of light. The table was made of polished granite, and a mineral
> flek was reflecting the light. Instantaneously, I understood! I went home
> and wrote it all down, praising God full of confidence once again...
>
> Our physical brains and bodies are like a mineral. Minerals are entirely
> material, the exact shape and alignment and construction of which determines
> how precisely it interacts with the world, and what all of its properties
> are. It determines how it reflects the light, at what angles, and even
> whether or not it reflects light at all. The crystal structure and its
> properties are 100% correlated - change one physical characteristic of the
> crystal, and you can change everything else about it. But the mineral
> itself, does not give off light, is not the source of the light. The light
> is external. Likewise, our brains and our bodies are entirely material, and
> how it is constructed, what it is made of, what we put into it, etc. affects
> everything we experience, how we interact with the world, and how well we
> physically capable we are to engage with all that is around us. But just
> like a mineral is not the source of the light, neither are we. Our
> consciousness,
> our rationality, our emotions, all of the intangible qualities about us
> (or any animal for that matter) that we call a "soul" are not intrinsic to
> our material bodies. They "emerge" from this physical platform only when we
> are in the presence of "light" - the "light" of God. In the presence of the
> life-giving Holy Spirit, we are brought to life through the Spirit's
> interaction with the material, and what we call a soul is the unique
> reflection of the Spirit through our physical being. All people are
> sustained by the Spirit, and thus when the Spirit withdraws, we die. Our
> "souls" appear to leave our body but they are really "in Christ" - that is
> to say, the unique pattern of that interaction of body and Spirit, is kept
> safe within God Himself. At the resurrection, God will transform our
> physical bodies and the Spirit will raise us to life again through that
> renewed interaction. Thus, there is continuity from our current life, yet we
> will be changed.
>
> That is what I believe, and that's how I came through my crisis of faith.
> In so far as I understand, it is consistent with science as well as
> Scripture. And by my husband's account, I am a much stronger and more deeply
> faithful Christian that I was when I started. I hope and pray this will be
> the case for you as you continue on your journey.
>
> I must be going, but as many here (including myself) have referred you to
> the work of N. T. Wright, I thought I'd point you to his website so you can
> explore it a bit if you're so inclined: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/.
>
> In Christ,
> Christine
>
> "For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7
>
> Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find
> out how.
>
> Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV
> for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org
>
>
> --- On Mon, 9/21/09, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
> > To:
> > Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Date: Monday, September 21, 2009, 11:48 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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> 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" <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>
> >
> > 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> 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>
> >
> > > To: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> >
> > > Cc: asa <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
> >
> > >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> 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 Wed Sep 23 18:08:34 2009