Bruce Waltke and the Scientific Orthodoxy

_{Cornelius Hunter

April 7, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Bruce Waltke, a Professor of Old Testament, has parted ways with Reformed Theological Seminary, perhaps due to controversies over his sympathies with evolution. Rod Dreher at BeliefNet worries that this is a dangerous disregard for science: Read more

Comments

---Aleta: "This is why I find it ironic that I,as an atheist, am being told I have abandoned reason when in fact the reason being offered by others is fundamentally motivated by the need to uphold a religious story that is significant only to it’s believers." You are not following the context. I am speaking to people who already claim to believe in the Bible and then go back on that claim. You judge everything on the basis of your own beliefs without paying attention to the way the issue is framed. This is typical.StephenB_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

"Jerry @85, The general feeling I get from you and StephenB is that if I don’t come to the same conclusion about the existence of an omnipotent god, there is something wrong with me." This is not my opinion. My opinion is that one who denies that a creator is highly likely, is intellectually bankrupt. Because of the nature of the universe, this creator has to be an intelligence of a extremely high level. That does not mean the creator is necessarily , omnipotent, omniscience, or omnipresent. I would not say someone is intellectually bankrupt if they did not believe the creator had those qualities. One does not have to be a Christian or a member of any specific religion. Other lines of reasoning would lead people to those conclusions. But to deny there very likely is a creator is stupid. They are then suspect on all issues that relate to this because the positions they hold on this conclusion is irrational and probably based on some article of faith they adhere to that is based on emotion. It does not mean you cannot be very learned at something, have excellent skills such as a surgeon or athlete, be an excellent teacher, contribute substantially to the good of people or society etc. It just means on this issue you are not coming to what is logical. And the more educated you are, the more intellectually bankrupt you are.jerry_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

Regarding the debate between Cornelius Hunter and Ted Davis, I would make a few quick points: 1. People would have to do much less "reading between the lines" about where Cornelius comes down if he would answer direct questions about his views when asked. For example, when the overwhelming majority of geographers, geologists, archaeologists, historians, etc. in the world deny that there was a global Flood at the time mentioned in the Bible, is it Cornelius's opinion that they are drawing a reasonable inference from good, solid empirical science, or that they are importing a religiously-motivated metaphysics into science? He does not hesitate to say the latter when it comes to evolution. Presumably, then, he knows how to recognize good empirical evidence when he sees it, and he knows how to recognize religiously motivated metaphysics when he sees it. So what does he see in the case of the critique of the Flood story? Why does he not share what he sees with us? 2. Cornelius laments the fact that people read things into his posts, but hasn't he read something into Ted's post, when he says: "while you are disappointed that I don’t take a stand against creationists’ biblical interpretations" I didn't hear Ted say that Cornelius should take a stand against creationists' Biblical interpretations. I think, rather, that Ted was expressing frustration that Cornelius neither gives his own Biblical interpretation on any specific issue, nor sets forth principles by which we can judge Biblical interpretations, and relate them to scientific opinions. In other words, I think Ted would rather hear Cornelius say, "I believe that all people on earth are descended from an original human pair which lived approximately 6,000 years ago", or "I accept the genomic argument that no original couple for the human race could have existed later than about 6 million years ago", or "..." (fill in any other clear remark reflecting what he currently believes about the origin of the present human population), than hear Cornelius maintain what might appear to be a studied silence on the question. But that's just my interpretation of Ted's frustration, and I could be wrong. 3. I am not asking Cornelius to stand in judgment on anyone's religion, or anyone's interpretation of the Bible. I just find it frustrating that he is so reticent about his *own* religion, and his *own* interpretation of the Bible, *especially* given his constantly repeated thesis: that everyone in the origins debate is carrying around metaphysical or religious baggage, and it would be better if we got it all out front. I agree with Cornelius about this. So I'm trying to find out what religious and metaphysical baggage Cornelius is bringing to his judgments. I'm trying to figure out what he thinks about the Bible, what status he thinks its statements have, whether he thinks it essential to Christian truth that the Bible never teaches anything contrary to science, etc. I wholeheartedly approve of Cornelius's work in flushing the metaphysical and religious attitudes of Darwin, Ken Miller, etc. out into the open. I just wish he would be more forthright about his own. 4. People may wonder why I am posting on this topic, when I said I would withdraw. I will explain why. It is not that I expect that Cornelius will answer any of the questions in this post. I have no reason, based on the rest of the thread, to expect that he will. Rather, I want to make clear why at least some people might find his reticence unreasonable, from a dialogical point of view. I have not asked the questions I have asked out of personal nosiness, but out of a desire to gain a greater understanding both of Cornelius's principles and of how they are best applied in practical cases. I therefore think that my questions and motives have been reasonable. If Cornelius disagrees, that is his right, but then the conversation must end, not in anger, but in recognition of the fact that we have a fundamental disagreement over what a productive two-way conversation concerning religion and science should look like. If one person cannot or will not supply what another is looking for in the conversation, then conversation should be able to end amicably, for pragmatic reasons, with no hard feelings. I believe that Cornelius either cannot or will not supply what I need out of this conversation, and therefore I am amicably withdrawing. T.Timaeus_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

Being a "morally and spiritually conscious human beings" is different than having a soul. And the Genesis story about God breathing life into man makes it sound that man was just inanimate matter until infused with a life force, which is a different thing than being infused with a soul. This whole discussion is very illuminating to me, as it shows that behind all the philosophy about what can and cannot arise through natural processes is a need to preserve a particular religious mythology. This is why I find it ironic that I,as an atheist, am being told I have abandoned reason when in fact the reason being offered by others is fundamentally motivated by the need to uphold a religious story that is significant only to it's believers.Aleta_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Ted, @76: Thanks for your comments. Since you appear not to have time for an extended dialogue, I will simply provide an abbreviated, and I hope not too contentious, response to your points. Since John Polkinghorne doesn’t accept God’s capacity to know the future, [of course, we know that God doesn’t really “foreknow” anything, he just “knows,” being outside of time] then he is in no position to reconcile science with Biblical Theology. If, as Polkinghore believes, God can, in some cases, know things after the fact, then God isn’t omniscient and is not, therefore, God. I don’t know what else there is to say about that. In keeping with that point, I have never held that theistic evolutionists abandon ALL Biblical teachings--they just dismiss the ones that get in their way. That brings us to your next TE. Your quote from Beale reads as follows: [Evidence that some TEs accept the doctrine about Adam and Eve]. “If we accept that there are now spiritually conscious human beings, and there was a time in the past when there were none, then there must have been a time when this property first emerged in humanity. The word ‘adam’ in Hebrew means ‘man’ and his not really a proper name: by Adam and Eve we mean the first morally and spiritually conscious human beings. It is therefore somewhat curious when people doubt their existence.” Is this the Adam and Eve of the Bible? Clearly, the Bible does not support the position that a human “soul,” or a spiritual consciousness could “emerge” from matter. How do we know this? The book of Genesis tells us that God “formed a human body of the slime of the earth and breathed into his face the breath of life.” To form means to make something skillfully. In keeping with that point, it is clear that God made the human body out of the earth. Clearly, this leaves the door open for some kind of evolution. It does not, however, allow for a soul-from-matter variety of Darwinistic evolution because the soul is not made from the earth but is a “breath” of God. According to Scripture, God breathed a soul into a human body. From the earth means from the bottom up; God’s breath means from the top down. To be sure, one could reconcile Scripture with the idea of an evolved body emerging from matter waiting for God to implant the soul, but a soul emerging from matter is a different proposition. Not only does such a idea militate against the clear teaching of Scripture, it doesn’t even hang together as a coherent proposition. How, if souls, minds, and moral consciences can emerge from matter, could our first parents be tempted? Did the evil one stalk hominids for generations waiting for the right generation to spawn a soul and then use the trial and error method until just the right moment? How is [was] it possible for the tempter to know which generation to tempt, or even to know if souls of any kind would ever appear? Darwinism [not evolution] strains theology until it cries for mercy, and only someone dedicated to Darwin would suggest that Adam’s soul emerged from matter.StephenB_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

Aleta @87,
I find the constant denigration of atheism and atheists somewhat amusing.
I wish I could, but I believe they are quite serious and that makes me think that they are not listening to my arguments, but rather, are responding to a label.Toronto_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

I find the constant denigration of atheism and atheists somewhat amusing. For instance, Jerry writes, "It is so absurd given the evidence that it is at best faith based," and yet in this same thread Stephen declares as non-negotiable (no matter what evidence might come up) things that are wholly faith-based, such as Adam and Eve, original sin, and the existence of Christ as Redeemer. Morgentau writes, "The important point is that atheists have abandoned reason. As such they should not be trusted to treat evidence rightly on ANY issue." I feel the same way about people who are willing to believe as non-negotiable items things which are clearly, to me, part of Christian mythology and are at best a matter of faith unsupported by evidence and reason. So I really don't take seriously at all these claims that, as an atheist, I have abandoned reason and am intellectually bankrupt.Aleta_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

Jerry @85, The general feeling I get from you and StephenB is that if I don't come to the same conclusion about the existence of an omnipotent god, there is something wrong with me. I on the other hand, would listen to either of your opinions and see whether they made sense. Your religious beliefs make no difference to me. You might be right and able to convince me I was wrong. I don't have that option available to me when I talk to you. If I am an atheist, I must be wrong in your eyes sometimes, depending on the topic Jerry, but in StephenB's, I would never be able to come to a reasonable conclusion, because, as an atheist, it would be impossible for me to come to a reasonable conclusion. Where does that leave me?Toronto_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

I once called atheists intellectually bankrupt, which I still believe is true and it started a thread of over 500 comments by atheist trying to show they were not intellectually bankrupt mainly by showing how smart they were. So far I have not seen a self identified atheist here or anywhere else who does not fit that description, smart sometimes but intellectually bankrupt always about origins. I said I could understand Deism or some doubt about the identity of the creator as reasonable but not atheism. It is so absurd given the evidence that it is at best faith based. Their best defense of their position is that the alternatives do not have concrete evidence for their religious beliefs. Atheism is a fad and is currently socially in with certain groups of people. But reasonable? I am sorry it is intellectually bankrupt.jerry_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

Morgentau,@85, are you a troll? Perhaps you need to be watched.StephenB_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

---Toronto: "So that you understand, I wrote the comment @78 because what you said at 73 scares me, not because I want to make points in a debate." Sometimes a little fear can be a good thing. ---"If, like Antony Flew, I should ever change my view-point of the world to yours, how could anyone say it was a “reasonable” decision if the claim is that I am not able to reason properly in the first place?" The issue of accepting reason's standards is not unreleated to a person's disposition toward the subject, which can be altered. It is not a question of intelligence. Many atheists are brilliant. Rather, it is a question of preference. People either choose to be reasonable and accept principles such as the law of causality, the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, the fact that all men naturally want to be happy, and a number of other self-evident truths, or they choose to be unreasonable and not accept them. If they don't accept those principles, it is because they do not want to, and insofar as they continue to reject them, they will be unable to interpret evidence reasonably. Occassionally, atheists become weary of living a purposeless life and decide to give reason a fair hearing. At other times, they find new and more edifying influences, and that too can change them.StephenB_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Toronto, StephenB is correct. Also Flew may have received the Grace to understand this much although he cannot be saved as a Deist. The important point is that atheists have abandoned reason. As such they should not be trusted to treat evidence rightly on ANY issue.Morgentau_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

---Toronto: "How can an atheist, someone who has “no standard by which to evaluate evidence in the first place”, come to the same conclusions as a true believer." Flew became a different person. As a rule, atheists disregard the principles of right reason. Indeed, every atheist I have ever interacted with on this blog, question them--including you. So, I feel no hesitancy about making my claim.StephenB_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Ted:
I am not sure exactly what point you are making, George, when you say that the “Galileo Affair has tremendous enduring value and utility in the Warfare thesis.” You might be saying that many people still use it to advance the “warfare” view, and of course that would be entirely correct. Alternatively, you might mean that the *real* story of the Galileo affair is very useful for *debunking* the warfare view, and that would also be correct.
Sorry for the ambiguity, I meant the former.
However, you have entirely declined to offer any specific examples of how you would go about handling any one of those cases. You like to say what is *not* acceptable, but you are unwilling to indicate what *would be* acceptable. That is your prerogative, but it does not make for a very convincing position.
This seems to be yet another example of, as Timaeus put it, "reading between the lines." In fact, I don't recall telling people how to do their religion (my objections are mainly with lies and misrepresentations). And I have openly expressed my opinion of what is acceptable. I myself tend toward empricism, but I have no problem with creationists and evolutionists basing their approaches on deeply held religious positions.
As for Galileo, this is also a difference of opinion. Neither of us is a Galileo scholar, but my experience studying and teaching Galileo (and not just his “Letter to Christina,” though that is the text of his that I know the best) for almost 30 years surely puts me in a better position to render an opinion on this–which hardly means that I must be right, George, but it does mean that I have some basis from which to make claims about this. (Many years ago I pulled together some general thoughts about teaching science and religion, with links to a syllabus and some assignments, that can be seen at http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/course.html. Interested parties are invited to peruse them.) I did not claim that his “Letter to Christina” is of unlimited value, but I do not know any other single text on the Bible and science that is of greater ongoing relevance. [...] The more I follow the modern origins controversy (which I’ve followed for more than 30 years), the more I am convinced of the ongoing relevance–and great importance–of taking Galileo very seriously. His “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina,” (partly available in illegal forms on the internet but entirely available in Stillman Drake’s translation in print) is IMO the single most important text on biblical interpretation, relative to science, that has ever been written. (I realize that’s a strong claim, but I often make it.)
OK, but you seem reticent to elaborate on how Galileo’s message would help us with evolutionary thought? It seems strange that Galileo’s work is so important for us today, and yet it doesn't apply to the most influential, important theory of origins. When evolutionists, from Charles Darwin to Ken Miller, make metaphysical claims about God and creation that mandate evolution, what would Galileo say about this? It seems the obvious answer is that Galileo would oppose such religious mandates, just as he did in his day, no?Cornelius Hunter_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

StephenB, So that you understand, I wrote the comment @78 because what you said at 73 scares me, not because I want to make points in a debate. There are some people who don't believe you are reasonable in coming to the conclusions you do. If we can look at people this way, the next step is to say, since you can't evaluate evidence properly, we cannot allow you to take part in choosing our leaders. Neither of us should be deprived of that right or any other decision-making process. If, like Antony Flew, I should ever change my view-point of the world to yours, how could anyone say it was a "reasonable" decision if the claim is that I am not able to reason properly in the first place?Toronto_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

StephenB @73
“Indeed, atheists and agnostics do not even believe in the principles of right reason, which means that they have no standard by which to evalute evidence in the first place.”
You've set up a very interesting paradox. Antony Flew was an atheist, who using his reason, determined he was wrong. According to you, since he was an atheist, he didn't believe in the principles of right reason. How can an atheist, someone who has "no standard by which to evaluate evidence in the first place", come to the same conclusions as a true believer? At what point was he able to evaluate the evidence properly? There is no easy answer here, as we have an atheist correctly reasoning that he was wrong while he was still an atheist and not able to evaluate the evidence properly. If he could evaluate the evidence properly, then according to you, he could not have been an atheist to begin with. This means that a lot of the people who claim they are atheists, may not be. Their reasoning ability is therefore quite able to evaluate any and all evidence including evolution. Therefore, Antony Flew and all others who call themselves atheists clearly have the ability to reason and evaluate evidence.Toronto_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

I now end my comments on this thread, though I will read any that are added by others. TedTed Davis_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

StephenB: I respond now to your statement, "I am complaining about theistic evolutionists who claim to believe EQUALLY in Biblical Truth and in scientific evidence, but who ALWAYS subordinate the former to the latter, even when there is no evidence to justify it. What they believe in is Darwinism; God is just a footnote for them. It is less about reconciliation and more about capitulation. That’s the point." We agree that some TEs fit this description, StephenB. I have referred to some of them in print and criticized them in a similar manner. I know others who don't--and Polkinghorne is in this category. If I tell you to read some Polkinghorne, you brush me aside with a reference to his acceptance of open theism, a position that he and quite a few others hold mainly for reasons unrelated to "Darwinism" or even science generally. They might use it as part of a theological framework from which to interpret evolution, but "Darwinism" isn't usually the reason they hold to open theism. And, there are prominent TE theologians, such as Robert Russell, who reject open theism. Both Polkinghorne and Russell unambiguously affirm the actual creation of the universe, the reality of sin (that is, the fact that we are fallen), the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the redeeming work of the cross, and the genuine hope for a future life in a new heaven and earth. I see nothing of "Darwinism" in any of this, nor any evidence that God is merely a footnote. Of course, StephenB, you don't have to *agree* with Polkinghorne, Russell, or any other TE, but if you want me to take you seriously you *do* need to acknowledge the truth of what I have just said. I will close, StephenB, with a passage from "Questions of Truth," a recent book by Polkinghorne and his former student Nicholas Beale. You'd really like a lot of that book, StephenB, esp the appendices with detailed, careful discussions of fine tuning, the mind/brain problem, and evolution. On page 71, Beale answers the question, "Who Were Adam and Eve?" as follows: "If we accept that there are now spiritually conscious human beings, and there was a time in the past when there were none, then there must have been a time when this property first emerged in humanity. The word 'adam' in Hebrew means 'man' and his not really a proper name: by Adam and Eve we mean the first morally and spiritually conscious human beings. It is therefore somewhat curious when people doubt their existence." Granted, StephenB, a lot of people don't think of Adam & Eve in that way, but you allow for that. I think I just gave you a specific example pertaining to your claim here: "Even so, I have never met a TE who does not sacrifice at least one of these two basic Christian doctrines [Adam & original sin] in order to accommodate the Darwinistic ideology, with little sensitivity to the fact that not a trace of it has been confirmed by evidence. Press them about our singular first parents, for example, and they will say that they simply do not believe it, but rather than defend their position, they allude to other authors who agree with them as if that response addresses the issue." StephenB, meet Nicholas Beale. Now, as for "evidence" (see the paragraph of yours that I just quoted), there's abundant evidence for the great antiquity (relative to Genesis) of our first parents, whoever they were. They existed long before the cities and agriculture of Adam's world, and this raises hard questions about the historicity of early Genesis, including the fall story that is part of that package. You've undoubtedly thought about that, but let me point out again (as I did on First Things) that "Darwinism" really has nothing to do with any of this, contrary to what you keep saying. ID studiously ignores geology and anthropology, thereby appearing to skip neatly past these issues, but this is just sleight of hand. Science raises these issues, but "Darwinism" itself doesn't. If Darwin had never existed and no one else had ever proposed his theory, we would still have to think about the historicity of early Genesis, including the fall story. You seem to have problems with Waltke’s cautious attitude about this (if I have understood you correctly), and you definitely have problems with the views of many “theistic evolutionists.” Can you do any better? I gather that George can’t; at least, he won’t say.Ted Davis_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

StephenB writes, "Indeed, atheists and agnostics do not even believe in the principles of right reason, which means that they have no standard by which to evalute evidence in the first place." This is indeed true. On the so-called 'reason' of the atheist-agnostic, 'Vernunft ist die höchste Hur die der Teufel hat' (Luther). Before reading any work of 'science' I want to know whether he who wrote it is atheist or agnostic, because I will not trust it then. Why should we believe them on anything much less evolution, whose reason has taken wing and flown from them?Morgentau_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

George Hunter wrote: "The Flood, the age questions, evolution, etc., are all very different cases. Unlike Ted Davis I do not find Galileo’s opinions to be of such enduring value or so generalizable. The comparison of Galileo Affair in general, and heliocentrism vs geocentrism in particular, with other science-religion isses is simply limited. The science, the metaphysics, the players and personalities, the agendas, …, they are all quite distinct and do not map easily to today’s issues. I have yet to see this done in a non tendentious way. Of course the Galileo Affair has tremendous enduring value and utility in the Warfare thesis." I see more similarity than you do, George, on the questions arising out of early Genesis. Yes, each case is somewhat different, but they are all part of text that most biblical see as different in its fundamental character from other parts of the Bible. I don't want to debate the merits of that conclusion here--neither of us is a biblical scholar--but I'm sure you realize this. However, you have entirely declined to offer any specific examples of how you would go about handling any one of those cases. You like to say what is *not* acceptable, but you are unwilling to indicate what *would be* acceptable. That is your prerogative, but it does not make for a very convincing position. As for Galileo, this is also a difference of opinion. Neither of us is a Galileo scholar, but my experience studying and teaching Galileo (and not just his "Letter to Christina," though that is the text of his that I know the best) for almost 30 years surely puts me in a better position to render an opinion on this--which hardly means that I must be right, George, but it does mean that I have some basis from which to make claims about this. (Many years ago I pulled together some general thoughts about teaching science and religion, with links to a syllabus and some assignments, that can be seen at http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/course.html. Interested parties are invited to peruse them.) I did not claim that his "Letter to Christina" is of unlimited value, but I do not know any other single text on the Bible and science that is of greater ongoing relevance. (That opinion is in no way idiosyncratic, any more than it would be idiosyncratic to stress the great ongoing relevance of texts by Sun Tzu or Machiavelli in other contexts.) I am not sure exactly what point you are making, George, when you say that the "Galileo Affair has tremendous enduring value and utility in the Warfare thesis." You might be saying that many people still use it to advance the "warfare" view, and of course that would be entirely correct. Alternatively, you might mean that the *real* story of the Galileo affair is very useful for *debunking* the warfare view, and that would also be correct. Either way, I am not sure whether you are implying that I use Galileo in some way to advance a "conflict" between science and religion. Anyone who looks at the site I just pointed you to can form their own conclusions about that, with regard to my teaching. With regard to my scholarship, it speaks for itself. My vocation as a Christian scholar is both to undermine the classic "warfare" view and to help create a more accurate history of science and Christianity--which will ipso facto be much friendlier to people of faith and to the orthodox faith itself. I am sure that anyone with a good knowledge of my scholarly work would agree with this self-assessment. Good day, GeorgeTed Davis_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

---seversky: "You are saying that if reason or evidence were to be found in conflict with those beliefs, the latter would prevail in all cases, regardless." I think you may be missing the point. I am not complaining at the moment about agnostics or atheists, who do not believe in the Bible and therefore have nothing to reconcile. Indeed, atheists and agnostics do not even believe in the principles of right reason, which means that they have no standard by which to evalute evidence in the first place. I am complaining about theistic evolutionists who claim to believe EQUALLY in Biblical Truth and in scientific evidence, but who ALWAYS subordinate the former to the latter, even when there is no evidence to justify it. What they believe in is Darwinism; God is just a footnote for them. It is less about reconciliation and more about capitulation. That's the point.StephenB_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

Cornelius: Yes, I did say what you said, but then I began the next paragraph with: "Even if you have no such implicit message..." indicating that I might be wrong, and suggesting that we move on to other aspects of the discussion. You should not underestimate your conversation partner. The fact that I chose simple examples does not mean that I do not appreciate complexity. Indeed, this should have been evident to you from the fact that I repeatedly said things like: "I am not saying the two cases are identical" and invited you to add all the qualifications and nuances you thought necessary. I have many years of experience as a university teacher, and I have found that starting with something simple, and establishing agreement on a few basic things before matters get too complicated, is often a very useful approach. However, this approach failed here, because I could not get you to move up from simple to complex, answering questions in the order that I asked them (an order devised to bring us onto the same page, so that from a platform of agreement we could advance in understanding together); and now my reward for employing simple examples is to be accused of not grasping complexity. You might as well criticize a chemistry teacher for not having a grasp of the complexities of chemistry, because he starts out ninth-grade students with a model of the atom involving only protons, electrons and neutrons, and saves discussion of mesons, quarks, etc. for later. I believe that the level of sophistication of your discussion of scientific methodology is high enough, and I believe that your knowledge of debates over the Bible and science is wide enough, that you have probably formed an intelligent (albeit tentative) opinion on whether or not inferences against a global Flood should count as empirically based, or as based primarily on metaphysical presuppositions about the way God acts. You are of course not required to offer your tentative intelligent opinion on the Flood or anything else. But your opinion, coupled with the reasons for holding it, might well be instructive to the readers here, who might thus learn something about how to think out a concrete problem in discussions of the Bible and science. Nonetheless, I respect your right not to reveal what you think on the question. Ted Davis is an accomplished historian of science who can defend himself, so I won't say much, other than that I believe that if you take all of his remarks in context, including remarks published in various scholarly journals, his application of the Galileo case is more nuanced than you appear to grant. I know from personal conversation with him that he is as much opposed to the "warfare thesis" as you are, and he is on record as arguing that the rise of science in the 17th century was directly connected with Christian theological assumptions and very much compatible with them -- hardly a "warfare thesis". I suspect that your own view on whether there is tension between the teaching of the Bible and some modern scientific theories is far from clear to him, as it is far from clear to me, but you will have to take that up with him at the appropriate opportunity. And at that I must leave it. Thank you for the exchange. T.Timaeus_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

---Cornelius Hunter: "Quite the opposite. I don’t see anything wrong, per se, with rationalism, theological presuppositions, and so forth." Actually, there is something wrong with both rationalism and empiricism. The only metaphysic that comports with common sense is realism, which acknowledges that we come to know things with both our intellect and our sense experience. If I meet someone for the first time, my intellect grasps the universal, a quality that this individual has in common with everyone else, an example of which is the person's human nature. At the same time, my senses grasp the particular, that which is his/hers alone, examples of which are hair color, face, and body shape. The tradition of rationalism is an extremist position that accepts the intellect as an organ of knowledge while rejecting the role of sense experience; the tradition of pure empiricism is an extremist position that accepts sense experience as an organ of knowledge but rejects the role of the intellect. As such, both approaches are incomplete and therefore, erroneous.StephenB_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

Timaeus (69):
You’re seizing on one comment of mine — a comment which, if you remember, I acknowledged could be off-base
Sorry, but "I believe that even if you have never said it directly in so many words, that a critique of theological naturalism, theological rationalism, etc. is implied between the lines ..." isn't much of of an acknowledgement.
In particular, it seems to me that, though you have not directly criticized rationalism as such, you have in the past *analyzed* aspects of rationalism, and have in the course of your analysis contrasted theological rationalism (have you not said that God-wouldn’t-do-it-that-way arguments are examples of theological rationalism?) with a theological tradition that is not rationalist, and have linked up the non-rationalist theological tradition with the Bible.
Again, I don't recognize this. Yes, there have been empiricists who believed in the Bible, but so have most of the influential rationalists, before the twentieth century at least.
I was giving you a chance to flesh out such hints on this subject as you have dropped in your various posts,
Thank you for affording me the opportunity, but I'm afraid I made no hints. I'm afraid I'm less clever than you think.
and I thought the Flood example might be a good one which would allow you to hold forth, explaining for all of us what would be a “rationalist” way of reasoning out whether or not there was a global Flood, and what would be a “non-rationalist” approach, and how our method of reading the Biblical story would figure in, in each case. You say that you are “no friend of” “religious intrusions into science”. Well, my Flood example, and several of my other points, have given you the perfect opportunity to hold forth on exactly where you think the boundaries are, and how Biblical interpreters can avoid “intrusions into science”.
I am not completely opposed to metaphysics influencing science as you seem to be. I say "no friend of" simply because I certainly don't advocate such. But my greater concern is the truth-in-advertising problem (which is inherent in evolution) and its negative effect on science. The deep metaphysical premises can be avoided, but usually folks prefer to employ them. Either way is fine with me. But let's be honest about the premises and about the science. In any case all of this is a fairly complex problem, involving history, philosophy, theology, and science. I'm happy just to scratch the surface. Your hypothetical questions, on the other hand, seem to me to lack an appreciation for the complexity. There are simply way too many details in the history, philosophy, theology, and science that need to be spelled out. Aside from a call to honesty and non denial, I know of no general principles which you seem to want me to produce. The Flood, the age questions, evolution, etc., are all very different cases. Unlike Ted Davis I do not find Galileo's opinions to be of such enduring value or so generalizable. The comparison of Galileo Affair in general, and heliocentrism vs geocentrism in particular, with other science-religion isses is simply limited. The science, the metaphysics, the players and personalities, the agendas, ..., they are all quite distinct and do not map easily to today's issues. I have yet to see this done in a non tendentious way. Of course the Galileo Affair has tremendous enduring value and utility in the Warfare thesis. It does strike me as odd that you are so exercised about people who are above board about their metaphysics and state of science, while evolution misrepresents history, philosophy, theology, and science, constructs blacklists, ruins careers, and demonizes those who would question it.Cornelius Hunter_{April 14, 2010
April
04
Apr
14
14
2010
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

Cornelius: You're seizing on one comment of mine -- a comment which, if you remember, I acknowledged could be off-base -- and you are ignoring all the rest. You have not seen, or at least have not acknowledged, the importance of many of the other concerns that I have addressed. I have repeatedly granted the value of your critique of evolutionary theory as short on empirical confirmation and heavy on metaphysics. You need not re-explain it for me further, as essentially the same point is made in all your postings. My point was to try to get at aspects of your thought *other than* the point about the underlying metaphysics of evolutionary theory. In particular, it seems to me that, though you have not directly criticized rationalism as such, you have in the past *analyzed* aspects of rationalism, and have in the course of your analysis contrasted theological rationalism (have you not said that God-wouldn't-do-it-that-way arguments are examples of theological rationalism?) with a theological tradition that is not rationalist, and have linked up the non-rationalist theological tradition with the Bible. I was giving you a chance to flesh out such hints on this subject as you have dropped in your various posts, and I thought the Flood example might be a good one which would allow you to hold forth, explaining for all of us what would be a "rationalist" way of reasoning out whether or not there was a global Flood, and what would be a "non-rationalist" approach, and how our method of reading the Biblical story would figure in, in each case. You say that you are "no friend of" "religious intrusions into science". Well, my Flood example, and several of my other points, have given you the perfect opportunity to hold forth on exactly where you think the boundaries are, and how Biblical interpreters can avoid "intrusions into science". I have also asked you whether science should stay away from inferences about the past altogether, and, if not, what should happen when a Biblical story and scientific inferences about the past appear to clash. I am pretty sure that I am not the only one who like to hear you speak more fully on these subjects. However, you seem disinclined to pursue my lines of questioning, so I won't press you any longer. I am sorry if I have been a bother. T.Timaeus_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

Timaeus (55):
I believe that even if you have never said it directly in so many words, that a critique of theological naturalism, theological rationalism, etc. is implied between the lines if we take the overall drift of your argument over dozens of blog posts here and elsewhere over the last few years. However, I won’t fight over this.
Quite the opposite. I don't see anything wrong, per se, with rationalism, theological presuppositions, and so forth. Yes, I do think one can do metaphysics badly just as one can do science badly. And there is plenty of both to go around, including within evolutiondom. But my main concerns with evolution are, first, its elephant-in-the-room internal contradiction of (i) making metaphysical mandates and then (ii) mandating no metaphysics. And second, that this has led to such horrible science. But I do point out the strength in some of the evolutionary metaphysics, and instances of good science it has led to. It is not a simple story, but unfortunately it is so often pigeon-holed into the same old warfare "ah here's another anti evolutionist who is reacting to naturalism, liberalism, etc," as you have here. Of course I don't expect you or anyone else to read everything I write, so misconceptions can happen. But you persist, above, in spite of my explaining the misconception. The warfare thesis is stubborn and has great utility. Nothing better than pigeon-holing the evolution skeptic as the one who is religiously-driven.
Even if you have no such implicit message, it is clear that you prefer not to answer a good number of my questions, and don’t want the conversation to go down the path I’m interested in going down. I gave you a pretty clear opportunity to clarify your thoughts on some issues with the Flood example, but if you don’t choose to be explicit in the face of an opportunity like that, there is nothing I can do.
I have been a bit mystified that I have become the target of your inquisition, particularly since you seem to be concerned with religious intrusions into science which I am no friend of. But I think I'm beginning to understand.Cornelius Hunter_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

Oops! Sorry about the above. I inadvertently hit Submit Comment before doing anything. Please delete it if you want. StephenB @ 63
This brings us back to the question about which Scriptural truths are non-negotiable and the contemporary TE problem (not the traditional TE, which is a totally different mindset). I submit, for example, that the teaching about original sin, singular first parents, and God as creator of the universe should be beyond the reach of science to refute. If you give those away to the Darwinist mentality, you may as well go all the way and become an agnostic.
And that is a problem how exactly? :) It goes without saying that you or anyone else are entitled to believe whatever you choose. But you do realize that if you grant unconditional immunity to certain beliefs from any form of criticism or challenge, you are effectively abandoning your commitment to reason - right or otherwise - and to following the evidence wherever it may lead. You are saying that if reason or evidence were to be found in conflict with those beliefs, the latter would prevail in all cases, regardless. You realize also that, in so doing, you deny yourself the opportunity of providing arguments and evidence to support those beliefs. If argument and evidence cannot count against them then neither can they count for them.Seversky_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

63 StephenB 04/13/2010 5:46 pm I have debated this issue many times from partisans from both sides [yes, I know some will be tempted to call me a partisan], and here is what I have found. Among the most reasonable of the TE’s and among the most reasonable ID advocates, God’s revelation in Scripture and God’s revelation in Scripture cannot be in conflict because God cannot be in conflict with himself. Contrary to this most reasonable view, we find, at one extreme, a very small section of reactionaries from the ID camp, for whom every word in the Bible must be taken literally, and, at the other extreme, no small number of heavy handed Darwinists among the TE contingent, for whom the clear teachings of Scripture may be abandoned anytime they feel the slightest tension between theological truth and the latest scientific fad. For those on both sides who are reasonable, the issue, it seems to me boils down to this: What Scriptural teachings are absolutely non-negotiable and cannot be compromised even if science seems to be tugging the other way? What scientific findings are so evident that they cannot be denied even if a “literalist” interpretation of Scripture [every work taken as written regardless of the author’s intent or context] may be tugging the other way? We are all, or should be, seeking a “literal” interpretation, which is simply that view which reflects exactly what the author had in mind. What we want to avoid are the two extremes. On one end, we find the “literalist” interpretation, which ignores context and the author’s intent, (if he writes that it was “raining cats and dogs,” we do, if we are not a literalist, understand that cats and dogs were not falling out of the sky), and, on the other end, we find the “demythologized” interpretation, which reads secularist world views and unproven scientific speculations into Scripture and compromise basic teachings which ought not to be compromised. Since Timaeus, one of my favorite writers is doing a good job at calling attention to the first group [I do not, in my wildest speculations place Cornelius Hunter, another one of my favorite authors, in that mix] I will comment on the second group. This brings us back to the question about which Scriptural truths are non-negotiable and the contemporary TE problem (not the traditional TE, which is a totally different mindset). I submit, for example, that the teaching about original sin, singular first parents, and God as creator of the universe should be beyond the reach of science to refute. If you give those away to the Darwinist mentality, you may as well go all the way and become an agnostic. Without the first Adam and Eve (not necessarily by name) there is not need for the second Adam and Eve, [Christ and his mother]. Take away original sin, and there is no need for a redeemer.Seversky_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I submit, for example, that the teaching about original sin, singular first parents, and God as creator of the universe should be beyond the reach of science to refute. If you give those away to the Darwinist mentality, you may as well go all the way and become an agnostic. Without the first Adam and Eve (not necessarily by name) there is not need for the second Adam and Eve, [Christ and his mother]. Take away original sin, and there is no need for a redeemer. Personally, I have no problem with someone who claims that their given views are simply not subject to overrule by science. Especially given science's own limits, and the inescapability of metaphysics and philosophy. But frankly, I think you go too far here. A person who rejects two singular first parents (and after more and more reflection, I do not reject this) does not mean there is no need for a redeemer. It's not as if man could only have possibly fallen one single, specific, historical way and all other ways man could not be fallen. I agree with Chesterton and others who claim that of all of Christianity's teachings, that mankind is fallen and is in need of God is empirically obvious. I don't need Genesis to tell me -that-. I need to walk down just about any street in the world. That said, I will certainly agree that there are plenty of TEs who are milquetoasty, and who want that "loud Darwin and quiet God" as you say. I have strong disagreements with the good people at Biologos. But I'll point out that Aquinas (who's been a subject of note on UD lately) made arguments that God exists irrespective of the additional arguments particular to Christianity, certainly on such particular, if damn important doctrines.nullasalus_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Good grief, that should read: What scientific findings are so evident that they cannot be denied even if a “literalist” interpretation of Scripture [every word interpreted literally regardless of the author’s intent or context] may be tugging the other way?StephenB_{April 13, 2010
April
04
Apr
13
13
2010
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply