Re: Where the information comes from.

Stephen E. Jones (sejones@iinet.net.au)
Tue, 07 Sep 1999 21:21:30 +0800

Reflectorites

On Fri, 3 Sep 1999 08:27:37 -0400 (EDT), Loren Haarsma wrote:

>SJ>Followed consistently (as it is by radical theologians like Tillich and
>>Bultmann, and the so-called `Jesus School'), applying Loren's canons to the
>>Bible, one would end up with a fully naturalistic Christianity, which would
>>be useless for supernatural salvation.

LH>Obviously, there can be no "naturalistic" explanation of the Incarnation.

The simple fact is that there *are*, "by radical theologians like Tillich and
Bultmann, and the so-called `Jesus School'" who consistently carry out Loren's
canon of preferring a naturalistic explanation to everything (ie. methodological
naturalism), to the Bible.

If the origin of life did in fact involve God acting supernaturally, Loren's
theistic naturalistic approach would be the equivalent of what "radical
theologian" do to the Bible.

LH>I offered a few reasons why a Christian -- a Christian who firmly believes
>in the Incarnation (and other miraculous acts of God) -- could also
>believe that God accomplished one PARTICULAR thing, the formation of first
>life, via design-for-self-assembly and governance of natural laws.

The real question is, if Loren is "a Christian who firmly believes
in the Incarnation (and other miraculous acts of God)", why does he
rule out apriori the possibility that God might have acted supernaturally
in "the formation of first life"?

LH>To claim that, in order to be consistent, one must follow this
>particular claim with the GENERAL claim that God accomplishes EVERYTHING
>via natural processes, is such an obvious fallacy that it hardly merits
>discussion.

I can't follow Loren's reasoning here. Is "via natural processes" a
typo? As I understand it, Loren *does* "claim that God accomplishes
EVERYTHING via natural processes".

Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to
believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked,
but I'd rather not consider that)." (Dawkins R., "Put Your Money on
Evolution", Review of Johanson D. & Edey M.A,, "Blueprints: Solving the
Mystery of Evolution", in New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p34)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------