Expelled: Why are Americans allowed to care so much about freedom?, and other thoughts

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 28, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

Two nights ago, I finally saw the Expelled film.

I had become almost proprietorial about the widely denounced #5 political documentary. I had first broken the story of its existence last August. I watched it pitch and roll through accusations of trickery, a threatened lawsuit over plagiarism and a real one over intellectual property, production delays (it was supposed to be released on Darwin’s birthday but was pulled for edit), and, inevitably, street drama.

Security was so tight that – as I learned a couple of weeks ago – not only could I not get a screener, neither could the the screenwriter – fellow Canadian Kevin Miller.

Okay, so there I am, sitting half-frozen in a half-empty theatre in downtown Toronto, and … I had two main reactions:

Freedom … ?

As a Canadian, I felt confused by all the talk of freedom. Americans think so highly of freedom. It seemed so strange to me that the people in the film consider it normal to worry about life, the universe, and all that.

Here today, if you openly care even about your personal freedom to just be a goof somewhere unmolested, you are at war with society. The Government knows what is Good for us. Dissent caused by our dysfunctionally evolved neurons will be punished.

So the film felt strange – it assumed facts about human nature, such as the reality of the mind, that are everywhere under serious assault in the Western world. Canada used to be freer, but we aren’t supposed to know that any more. And people single themselves out if they say too much.

Intelligent design … ?

Second, the film badly needed an explanation of why there is an intelligent design controversy. Most of my friends and neighbours simply do not know. Legacy media retail tales from the bizarre swamplands of the United States where gun-toting cretins and their obliging sisters espouse unapproved doctrines without ever receiving any proper punishment.

When a Canadian writer wanted to publish articles on intelligent design that actually explain the arguments, he wrote to me wanting to know where he could get them published. I essentially replied, “Search me. I can’t imagine any legacy medium breaking free from the Darwinsludge – and if they did, they would be shut down much faster than in the States. The mere fact of independent ideas is itself the offence, as Maclean’s Magazine and Mark Steyn found. So watch your back.”

TV series needed?

Given the many recent discoveries that challenge Darwinism and materialism, a thirteen-part TV series on the real arguments for and against design is needed. But I can’t think who would show the series. That was likely a key reason for the producers’ decision to just make a film, so that at least people willing to buy tickets could find out something.

The God who had better really be there …

The film’s strongest point is that Stein is way too smart to waste a second on “theistic” evolution – the idea that we know that God exists by faith alone. On that view, God’s actions in the world around us are supposedly indistinguishable from chance events, so design is an illusion and faith means taking a leap without evidence.

So if, for example, neuroscientists had really found a “God gene” which explains why some people believe in God but others do not, well, we know by sheer faith that God put the gene there.

Or if evolutionary psychologists could plausibly explain belief in God as naturally selected for – again, we know by sheer faith that God really exists and caused this selection.

Except that he really didn’t, of course. It would be the other way around. The gene or the selection caused God.

Trust a smart fellow like Ben Stein to see through this gunk far more clearly than some of the Bible school biology profs I’ve dealt with: Put simply, if “theistic” evolution is true, religion is bunk.*

If, n the other hand, design is true, materialist atheism is bunk. Materialist atheists know this perfectly well. That is why they persecute the design guys and cozy up to the “theistic” evolutionists.

And why Expelled was made and has no time for “theistic” evolutionism.

Now here is a quick test: If “theistic” evolution meant anything other than what I am describing above, ID theorist Mike Behe and I should be called theistic evolutionists – we accept conventional dating methods and common descent of living things But we think that God’s actions, if they exist, can be detected. They are indeed distinguishable from chance occurrences. This is the position affirmed by Scripture, tradition, and reason and denied by “theistic” evolution. And it is why we are called “creationists.”

Look, if God doesn’t exist, he doesn’t exist. But if he does exist, we’ll know about it.

Finally, seeing the film shed light on two other controversial topics:

1. The Yoko Ono lawsuit: I got a chance to hear the controversial few bars from Lennon’s “Imagine” theme. Imagine so much fuss over so little! It sure helped me see why the Stanford fair use collective got involved on Expelled’s side. Politically, Expelled was not, perhaps, the most obvious choice. However, when I saw how little use was really made of the Lennon opus minimus, I understood why Expelled was a good choice.

Intellectual property laws were designed to bust knockoff Spongebobs, pirated Two Towers, photocopied textbooks, yada yada – in other words, substantial economic and moral losses – NOT some incidental capture of a cultural icon in a documentary. What a waste of court time! And what an opportunity to start reigning in such waste!

2. The claim that the atheists had been “tricked” into taking part. It was quite obvious that these professional atheists enjoy publicity. And why not? The legacy media have lionized them. The Expelled film is one of the few places ever that some of them are just allowed to be their nasty selves. Why that is anyone’s problem other than theirs, I confess I do not know.

*While we are here: The open theism that many “theistic” evolutionists flirt with just means that there isn’t really a God. A god who is “evolving along with creation” isn’t God. One should not describe open theism as a Christian heresy. It is an atheist heresy. The only important question is, can an atheist believe in superior alien beings like the evolving god?

Also: New at the Post–Darwinist:

Open letter to comedian Guy Earle … the latest to be charged by a Canadian “human rights”commission

Birds: What you thought you knew about their evolution is wrong, all wrong

Governor Bobby Jindal passes Louisiana bill to permit critical thinking about Darwin, and such (But is this a good idea?)

If order just somehow emerges from chaos, why aren’t we all young and beautiful?

Intellectual freedom: Is misunderstanding of Internet part of Canada’s “human rights” problem?

Alarm! Alarm! Critical thinking spotted in vicinity of pop science kludge

Intelligent design and the arts – better that way, actually. Much better.

The Right’s war on science? Lot’s of ink spilled there, but how about the Left’s war on science?

Teacher accused of burning cross on student’s arm and (much worse!) of teaching creationism

Write! Canada coverage highlights intellectual freedom risks, troubles of book industry

Comments

Alan: Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response. I understand that you are busy, so I shall keep my comments as focused as possible. The key philosophical point dividing us, as I see it, is whether the notion of change - and in particular, the relation of priority between two successive events A and B - can be understood without reference to time. We both agree that change is necessarily temporal. However, I maintain that (i) humans have a (limited) ability to understand the concept of change - and of one event's being prior to another - without explicitly invoking the notion of time, by invoking spatial metaphors; and (ii) that God can understand the concepts of change and priority without using any metaphors in a purely formal manner, which is neither spatial nor temporal. Humans can understand time by assimilating it to space, even as we recognize that there are some key differences between these two concepts. We can then employ a spatial metaphor to describe temporal changes, while keeping in mind that the spatial metaphor is NOT to be understood in a literal, spatial manner. We often conceive of change as a journey along a line, with a starting and a finishing point. This is a spatial metaphor, which it is convenient for us to employ in disciplines such as history, economics and the sciences. We draw graphs with a time axis, and we plot points along the axis. Using this schema, "A is prior to B" means that there is a path from A to B, but not vice versa. Having invoked this spatial metaphor to understand time, we then explicitly reject one aspect of it as extraneous and unhelpful: time, we say, can (like space) be measured, quantified and divided into smaller and smaller parts, but NOT extended: it is not north, south, east or west of me. Because we are by nature spatio-temporal beings, the only way we can imagine God's eternity is to imagine Him as viewing all times at once - like a security guard with multiple television screens, except that the screens show the world at each and every point in time (past, present and future). That is the best we can do when imagaining eternity. However, if you ask me how God understands time, I would answer: in the same way He understands space - mathematically, rather than experientially. God designed the geometry of space-time, and I do not presume to understand the underlying mathematics. The philosophical difficulty of an atemporal Being having a concept of temporal succession is no greater than that of an incorporeal Being having a concept of spatial extension. I take it you do not consider God to be corporeal. Your objection to an atemporal notion of priority is that it smuggles in the notion of time through the back door: "if we say that 'Socrates (tenselessly) sits at t1 and (tenselessly) stands at t2', then it seems that we no longer have a non-temporal kind of priority." That depends on what sense we attach to t1 and t2. It might be more helpful if we called them p1 and p2 (point 1 and point 2) instead. God's understanding of these points is purely formal and untainted by corporeal metaphors; ours, on the other hand, is limited by our spatio-temporality. Turning to matters theological: let me say that I consider your position to be a Christian one, but I would have to say it is a somewhat scandalous one. Here's why. If the notion of God's not knowing the future exhaustively were a novel one, I might regard it as an interesting and possibly legitimate development of Christian doctrine (like the idea, put forward by some ID proponents, that creatures can still be regarded as having been created by God - even though they share a common descent - insofar as they possess certain features that show them to have been designed). However, the record of history clearly shows that the early Church was quite familiar with the notion that human freedom precludes God from knowing the future in exhaustive detail. This was the pagan Cicero's view, and the Church emphatically rejected it from the start. If you are right, then Christians all around the world have for the past 2,000 years believed in a notion (that God foreknows our choices) which is either hideously immoral (if God is conceived as determining our future bad choices) or incoherent (if God is conceived as seeing our future choices) - and hence in either case, irrational. You are thus implying that a Roman living in the 4th century would have been rationally entitled to reject Christ in favor of Cicero. He or she could have justly argued: "Christians believe in the absurd notion of Divine foreknowledge; Cicero's disciples don't believe in any metaphysical absurdities; I think I'll become a Ciceronian." You might respond that no early Christian creed made God's foreknowledge an article of faith, but I'd still say you're skating on thin theological ice. We are, after all, talking about a unanimous teaching that was believed "always, everwhere and by all" (St. Vincent of Lerins), and what's more, upheld and defended against pagan philosophers who denied it, such as Cicero. I don't wish to condemn your point of view out of hand. It is still a Christian one. Likewise, I am far from certain that my own (Boethian) position on how God knows the future is correct. I realize that my efforts to smooth over the differences among Christians as to how God's foreknowledge can be reconciled with human freedom may make me look like I am wall-papering over the theological cracks. However, I would refer you to a book entitled "Atheism in France, 1650-1729" by Alan Charles Kors (published by Princeton University Press). In this erudite work, Professor Kors argues that bickering between rival schools of Christian theologians was what ultimately gave rise to atheism among France's intellectual elite. In what Kors describes as the "great fratricide," theologians from bitterly competing schools of Aristotelian, Cartesian, and Malebranchist Christian thought attempted to refute each other's proofs of God, and to depict the ideas of their theological opponents as atheistic. This caught the attention of France's reading public, causing many intellectuals to doubt the existence of God. France is to this day an atheistic country. Christians living in the 21st century should take heed.vjtorley_{July 3, 2008
July
07
Jul
3
03
2008
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

So let’s give the Open Theists the benefit of the doubt and grant that they are trying to protect the faith from skepticism generated unnecessarily by inherent contradictions in Christian doctrine and its descriptions of God. Here is the question: Is it more important to attempt to be friendly to atheists, who are enemies of the faith, or to strive for the “unity of the Spirit” that is said to be the sign of the lordship of Christ? It is impossible to obtain a transcendent description of God through intellect and its power of judgment. Intellect is a dividing power, and it always leads to descriptions of being that are divided between pure action and pure negation. Hence the church became divided five hundred years ago between Thomists, who characterized the good as Pure Act, and Calvinists (heirs of Augustine), who described it as pure negation, a force of absolute resistance to human existence. This divide cannot be overcome by intellect because it is dictated by the nature of intellect itself. As long as the church clings to its vain belief in the power of intellect to describe the nature of God, the church will be divided between natural followers of Plato and natural followers of Aristotle. Now I don’t see why we should care if philosophy is divided. I welcome nihilism to the extent that it annihilates the intolerable boasting seen in the whole motley crew of self-appointed philosophers and masters of “the good.” Nietzsche was right: philosophy was about the will to dominate and nothing more. Have the philosophers really obtained knowledge of transcendent value through a method of thinking about being, as they claim? Why then are virtually all of their descriptions of transcendent value divided between action and negation, intellect and sense, existence and resistance, being and nothingness? But it is painful to see the church divided over “disputable matters”—specifically over its doctrines of the nature of God and man. As far as I’m concerned, Open Theism is not particularly objectionable as a theory of the nature of God. The problem comes in when its proponents claim to have a monopoly on truth; when they attempt to dominate their fellow believers, leading to further division in the church. Let’s be honest: Open Theism is trying to do what Thomas already did—only he did it much better. His defense of free will is simply brilliant and probably cannot be improved upon from a Christian perspective. But then is it necessary to aggravate old wounds? What do we hope to gain from fighting such a battle? Friends among the Richard Dawkins of the world? At what cost? “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. The intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.” The only thing that matters is faith expressing itself through love. Everything else is a waste of time—especially speculation about the nature of God that further divides the church. http://jaytrott.com/allanius_{July 3, 2008
July
07
Jul
3
03
2008
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

vjtorley, Thanks for your comments. I will try to keep my responses brief. (1) Regarding my Philosophia paper, I was under tight length and time constraints in writing it. Consequently, the Boethian position didn't receive the attention that it merits. (2) For a bunch of different reasons, I don't think divine timelessness (DT) is a plausible position. I really can't elaborate right now so I'll simply throw a few of these out: (a) DT doesn't jibe well with Scripture, esp. the Incarnation; (b) DT implies a B-theory of time which, for various metaphysical reasons I believe to be false; (c) I believe DT is incompatible with divine freedom (briefly, exercising freedom necessarily involves making choices, which necessarily involves time). (3) It's incorrect to characterize the view that God experiences succession by saying that God is "in" time or that God is "time-bound". Such expressions reify time into a kind of container that one could be "in" or "out" of or in some way be "bounded" by. Those of us who deny divine timelessness simply don't think of time in that way. Instead, we think of time simply as change or process. Things change, there is time, same difference. (4) Your idea of non-temporal priority is unclear to me. Frankly, I have no idea how to think about change without invoking temporal categories. For example: Socrates is sitting and then stands up. "Then" implies a temporal sequence. Moreover, "is sitting" is present tense and thus implicitly involves a time reference. We can't just strip the tense out and say "Socrates (tenselessly) sits and (tenselessly) stands", for that tells us nothing about which is prior to which. And if we add temporal indices, viz., "Socrates (tenselessly) sits at t1 and (tenselessly) stands at t2", then it seems that we no longer have a non-temporal kind of priority. Finally, your comparison with logical priority doesn't seem relevant because the relation here is contingent and not necessary, as it is in logical contexts. In sum, I suspect that notion of non-temporal priority that the Boethian needs to invoke is simply incoherent. (5) Finally, regarding the proper Christian response to atheism, this is in fact a large part of what motivates open theism (and Molinism, and Thomism, etc.). We're all trying to do our best to articulate Christianity in a way that is internally consistent and externally defensible. In this mutual endeavor, there are obviously areas where we can all come together, such as defending versions of the cosmological and teleological arguments or the historicity of the Resurrection. But we can't set the in-house debates among us aside either. While exercising charity toward each other is essential, the stakes are high. If Jonathan Edwards is right, then Arminianism is logically inconsistent, and therefore necessarily false. If the moral objection against Calvinism is cogent, then we've got a fine reason for rejecting Calvinism and, if there is no viable theistic alternative, for rejecting theism. Feeling the force of both these charges, open theists propose a third option, one that preserves the usefulness of the free will defense without slipping into logical inconsistency. Now, maybe open theists have sized up the situation incorrectly, but maybe not. In any case, we can all be on the same side against atheism and naturalism even if we have energetic in-house debates regarding the best strategies to employ in fighting those battles. PS: Gentlemen, I've greatly enjoyed the discussion here over the past few days, but now duty calls and I must turn my attention elsewhere for awhile. God's blessings to all of you. I'm sure we'll have a chance to interact more in the near future.Alan Rhoda_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

"...the theological determinist position, which was upheld by the later Augustine and by Aquinas." I'm jumping in late here, but if you're saying what I think you're saying, you're quite wrong. St. Thomas was not a theological determinist. While it's true that he affirms the predestination of some men by God, he also affirms a perfectly free will in man. Thus, predestination does not mean for St. Thomas what modern readers assume it means. Man is *predestined* but his acts are not *predetermined.* St. Thomas uses the apt analogy of an arrow needing an archer to find its mark. So likewise man, in order to reach his proper end in Heaven, requires the direction of God. Imagine man as a literal arrow being shot from the bow of God. God has directed man toward his end, but man is still able, due to his free will, to squirm out of the path God has set him on and miss the mark. Thus, technically speaking, it is possible for a man to be predestined, yet still fail to attain Heaven. However, due to our limited perspective as creatures, we can never know whether such a man fell short of his proper goal or was simply predestined to Hell. For just as God predestines some men to Heaven, he also predestines, or reprobates, some to Hell. Unfortunately, in this latter case, predestination *does* imply predetermination, inasmuch as man is completely incapable of attaining Heaven on his own. God doesn't take away the reprobated man's free will and determine his every move. He simply withholds the only means available of attaining Heaven. (Note that all of this is an entirely separate question from whether God has foreknowledge of these events or not.) "...I believe that God does not know the future or anything else NOW. Frost argued above that God is outside time, and that is my own position too." It depends what you mean by NOW. If the now for temporal creatures is as a point on a line to the line itself, so is the line itself to the eternal now of God. That is to say, our "now" is, as it were, contained within the now of God, which is itself motionless and eternal. Somehow, what appears as a long, slow period of motion to us has all occurred instantaneously, outside of time, with God. Hence, while we can't know the future now, God certainly does. "The way I see it, Christians have to stand together, and give the atheists no quarter in the cosmic battle for souls. Too much is at stake for theological bickering, at a time like this." Why so? Whether one gets to Hell by way of atheism or heresy, it's still an eternity in a lake of fire. Christ established one Church, whether anyone likes that fact or not, and that Church is the One, Universal Church of Rome. Outside of her there is no salvation. These are hard words for modern ears to hear, accustomed as they are to soothing lies, but the truth never changes and never will. Now, that being said, there is some wiggle room for ignorance. Most people today are monumentally ignorant about such matters, and easily led. Consequently, there's some truth in what you say in that limited sense. It's probably better for them to have some acquaintance with Christ, even if what they believe is mixed with much error, than to have none at all. On the other hand, it is often the extreme on one side that drives men to the extreme on the other, so it's also true that atheism can act as an instrument of Christian evangelism for many people. All in all, I say it's a wash. One cannot successfully calculate and connive over which errors to embrace. I prefer to stand on infallible, revealed truth and simply point the way to the ark for those few who will listen.jnewl_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

vjtorley, "The way I see it, Christians have to stand together, and give the atheists no quarter in the cosmic battle for souls." I could not agree with this more. I have theological differences with many faiths, naturally - but I would vastly prefer to keep relations between just about any I could think of respectful and friendly, and have a unified front against atheism. Finding common ground where possible, and finding civility where common ground is lacking, is essential.nullasalus_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

vjtorley: I find your analysis of Alan's paper compelling and convincing. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting.StephenB_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

For the record, I would concur with Stephen B's conclusion that there is no conflict between open theism and intelligent design.vjtorley_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Alan, I have been reading your online article, "The Case for Open Theism," which was published in "Philosophia" (2007, 35:301–311). I'd like to offer a few comments, if I may. As I see it, the central flaw in your argument is that it tacitly assumes that God is somehow time-bound, rather than timeless. Your argument works perfectly, IF we grant this assumption. For if we allow (as the overwhelming majority of ordinary people, including Christians, believe) that the future is CAUSALLY OPEN (i.e. NOT determined by any PRESENT state of affairs) and if we also grant the highly plausible premise that it is impossible to KNOW (as opposed to correctly GUESS) the future NOW if it is causally open, then indeed it does follow that nobody (not even God) can know the future NOW. Actually, I would agree with this conclusion, because I believe that God does not know the future or anything else NOW. Frost argued above that God is outside time, and that is my own position too. In my summary of your argument, I highlighted the use of the word "NOW." However, if you remove the word "NOW," then your argument no longer works. It is highly plausible to argue that it is impossible to KNOW the future NOW if it is causally open; but I cannot see why it should be impossible to know the future from a TIMELESS perspective, even if it is causally open. This is simply the Boethian doctrine that God sees all - past, present and future. It is THIS doctrine which you must overthrow, in order to establish your case. I've just been having a look at your forthcoming paper, "Open Theism, Omniscience, and the Nature of the Future," with Gregory Boyd and Thomas Belt. (I've skimmed it, but haven't finished it yet.) As far as I can see, on a Boethian view, there is no need to regard the future as settled. The Boethian view does not in any way what you refer to as the "Settled Future View," in my opinion. It is not true NOW that there will be a sea battle tomorrow, to use Aristotle's example. And even if God knows timelessly that "A sea battle occurs on 3 July 2008," that does not make it true NOW. Tenseless propositions do not have to be true now. A Boethian would see no reason to grant premise (5) on page 27 of your article, which says that if "S does obtain at t" is (timelessly) true and t is in the future, then "S will obtain at t" is true and "S will not obtain at t" is false. If a Boethian can happily acknowledge that the future is open while continuing to uphold God's foreknowledge, then I believe that you (as an open theist) owe us an account of why you regard the Boethian position as unsustainable. To my mind, the only way you could do this is by discrediting once and for all the notion that God is timeless. In your earlier comment on this issue of God's timelessness (#32), you replied to Frost: "But since you bring it up, I’ll simply say that open theists are committed to a dynamic theory of time, according to which temporal becoming is a fully objective feature of reality and not merely a matter of human perspective. I know of no successful arguments refuting this view of time." May I make two points in reply? First, classical theists who uphold the doctrine of a timeless Deity do NOT deny the objectivity of becoming. What they deny is the notion that becoming can only be known (or understood) by beings with a time-bound perspective. Classical theists acknowledge the objective reality of one state of affairs being PRIOR TO another; but what they deny is that priority is objectively TEMPORAL. We experience the ontological relation of PRIORITY between two events within the framework of time; God does not. The notion of non-temporal priority might sound counter-intuitive, but it need not be. After all, logical priority - as when we say that the notion of "theft" logically presupposes the notion of "property" - is indisputably non-temporal. You would surely acknowledge that. Why, then, do you insist that ONTOLOGICAL priority has to be inherently temporal? Second, I respectfully submit that since you are arguing, in your article in "Philosophia," for the superiority of open theism over its competitors, the onus is on you to discredit the traditional view that God is outside time. I was surprised to find that you did not even discuss the traditional doctrine of God as timeless in your article. I would like to make a final observation. I believe that the theological debate over God's foreknowledge has generated far too much rancor among Christians. The real danger here is that atheists can play each side off against the others, and use their arguments to make Christianity look silly: no matter which alternative you pick, you have to embrace some philosophical absurdity. The way I see it, Christians have to stand together, and give the atheists no quarter in the cosmic battle for souls. Too much is at stake for theological bickering, at a time like this. It seems to me (from reading your article in "Philosophia") that you regard atheism as morally preferable to theological determinism - which is (for most of us) the least palatable way of explaining how God knows our future choices. I would suggest that rather than denouncing theological determinism for making a monster out of God, we should "shore up" this position by arguing that God need not be a monster, even if He does determine our choices. Hugh McCann makes a pretty good argument along these lines in his article, "Divine Providence" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/providence-divine/ . While I don't agree with McCann, I think he has taken much of the theological sting out of the theological determinist position, which was upheld by the later Augustine and by Aquinas. And now, over to you, Alan.vjtorley_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

----nullasalus: “does it now stand to reason the open theists could still maintain a commitment to ID” It appears that we are unanimous. The bar for Christianity is much higher than the bar for ID, so, as far as I can tell, there is no conflict between OT and ID.StephenB_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Well said, Frost.Alan Rhoda_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

anybody can make a commitment to ID. Open theism is about theism and theism is not a necessary or even sufficient condition for ID. We are talking apples and corvettes. And there is no contradiction between an open theistic belief and the theory of Intelligent Design.Frost122585_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

Nullasalus writes: "does it now stand to reason the open theists could still maintain a commitment to ID" Absolutely. Yours truly is one such open theist.Alan Rhoda_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I'm not committed to open theism, but it doesn't sound as if Alan has said he believes God could be surprised in the way you're taking. Recognizing the low odds of a given outcome doesn't equate with surprise at its coming to pass, especially when not just the possibility itself but all proceeding events remain foreseen. Though I can see how there would be a number of views on this. I would ask, though - given what Alan and others have offered, does it now stand to reason the open theists could still maintain a commitment to ID, in your view? I'm honestly surprised at the declaration that it can't, if only because certain faiths (mormons in particular come to mind) have both a very different-from-mainstream concept of God and at the same time have expressed support for ID. I recall a theological journal out of BYU having an article boosting ID.nullasalus_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

Alan, your formulation compromises God's omniscience. If God can be surprised in any way, even in terms of the unfolding of probabilities, then he is no longer God.StephenB_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

StephenB asks: "Can God be surprised in any way?" That depends on what you mean by "surprised". If you're asking whether some event could happen that God had not even anticipated as a possibility, then the answer is no since God is the ground of all possibility and knows Himself quite thoroughly. If, on the other hand, you're asking whether some event could happen that God had believed to be improbable, then the answer is yes. Passages like Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5, and 32:35 in which God says that the Israelites' sacrificing their children to Molech did not "enter my mind" are, I think, somewhat hyperbolic. And so I take them to indicate only antecedent improbability.Alan Rhoda_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Frank writes: "The church never discussed necrophilia. But that does not mean that it is an open question." Yeah, but is that really a fair parallel to open theism? With respect to necrophilia, there is no compelling case to be made for it, and there is plenty to be said against it. It is in direct conflict with core moral intuitions, the natural law, and Scriptural teaching. In contrast, there is quite a bit, both Biblically and philosophically, to be said for open theism. Nor, I would argue, is it in conflict with any aspects of 'mere Christianity'. So, I don't think that you have a good parallel here. The absence of discussion of open theism in the early Church is, I think, explained by (1) the fact that it was not a pressing issue, and (2) the prevailing philosophical zeitgeist, which regarded absolute immutability as a positive ideal. Cheers.Alan Rhoda_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Alan writes: "That presumption would be stronger if the early Church had explicitly and thoroughly considered the specific issues in question." There is a reason for this: the issues were not controversial. The church never discussed necrophilia. But that does not mean that it is an open question. :-)fbeckwith_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Sorry: Can God be surprised in any way?StephenB_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

-----Alan: “His exhaustive foreknowledge is of a future that is not, in itself, wholly definite. Rather, the future consists in part of unresolved possibilities or might-and-might-nots.” So, can God be surprised any any way?StephenB_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Hi Frank, Thanks for your engaging reply. In response, I think that you've set up a false dichotomy between 'classical' theism and 'open' theism. In my view, open theism is a version of classical theism (see my second reply to Denyse above (#20)). The issues that divide open and non-open (classical) theists are whether the future is epistemically settled for God and whether God has chosen to exercise general providence in some matters rather than meticulous providence across the board. Those issues, I believe, were not a relevant part of the backdrop for the early ecumenical creeds. They have no bearing on the deity of Jesus, the Trinity, the almightiness of God the Father, Maker of heaven and earth, or any other core doctrine of Christianity, so far as I can see. So I don't think that appeals to early Church tradition create anything more than a weak presumption against open theism. That presumption would be stronger if the early Church had explicitly and thoroughly considered the specific issues in question. To my knowledge, they didn't. Blessings, AlanAlan Rhoda_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Brooks and Dunn - Believe (music video) http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=b4fe13a5cc206a9e4cfcbornagain77_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Alan: It seems to me that it is not up to the classical theist to defend his point of view, since it is the open theist who is offering the innovation. This is not to say that the classical theist does not have arguments; he does. Rather, what I am suggesting is that the mere fact that open theism is coherent and fits a particular reading of the Biblel is not enough. Open theism must also show that the classical theism that served as the backdrop of the Athanasian, Nicean, and Chalcedon creeds is beyond rational recovery. But if you say that, then other problems emerge: the biblical canon accepted by open theists was fixed during the formulation of these creeds. So, if the Church couldn't get God right, then why not be "open" about the Bible as well? After all, the content of the canon was settled AFTER the doctrine of God. The biblical problem with open theism is that it treats the text as an ahistorical collection of proof-texts rather than as the book of the Church. Frankfbeckwith_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Thanks "bornagain77." I'll have to check out that essay in its entirety when I get the chance.Infinite Intelligence_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

God directly intervenes in human affairs, and in fact died on the cross for us. He is willing to suffer on our behalf; but the Bible never describes a situation where God allows his power to be limited by the nature of human beings. What is perhaps not well known is that the description of God as intellect comes from the Greeks. It is not found anywhere in the Bible. God may condescend to say, "Come, let us reason together," but God's word never says, as did Plato and Aristotle, that God is reason; that he is intellect in his essence. In fact the clear implication of the Book of Job is that God is not accessible to human intellect. Job found it necessary to get up and walk away from human discourse in order to hear directly from God. If God is a transcendent being, if God is "good" and undivided in value, then intellect cannot describe him, because intellect is a dividing power. Solomon and the story of the prostitute's baby is relevant here. There is another way to obtain understanding of God, however, as we all know. The meaning of Eph. 3:17 and 1 John 4:7 should not be ambiguous. As to the role of intellect--let her be a handmaiden of the love seen on the cross. Then human vanity will not lead her astray.allanius_{June 30, 2008
June
06
Jun
30
30
2008
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

"but this has the unfortunate effect of entangling God to some degree in his creature’s sinfulness" Well, that is what the Bible describes: Proverbs 16:4 “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.” Isaiah 45:7 “The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.” Lamentations 3:37-38 “Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?" Amos 3:6 “If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?” While it is true that God tempts no one, He is still the ultimate (NOT proximate) cause of all things that come to pass, whether good or evil, and they come to pass because He purposed them (Isaiah 46:9-10).Saint and Sinner_{June 29, 2008
June
06
Jun
29
29
2008
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

out* WittgensteinedFrost122585_{June 29, 2008
June
06
Jun
29
29
2008
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

allanius wrote,
"God becomes the same thing as pure intellect and its capacity to negate the value of existence."
No by saying that God is greater than the intellect you are not negating anything but expressing positive power that indeed does transcend not only this world, but in refutation of your argument, our intellects as well. IF you say "more" we are pointing as best as we can, away from ourselves. You are negating nthe existence of my argument with your intellect. To argue that theology cannot be in part an intellectual debate is to refute everything you just said about theology! In that cause the best refutation you can “not” put forward is to sit in silence and not type anything on this subject any longer. I just our Wittgensteind you! (teasing BTW)Frost122585_{June 29, 2008
June
06
Jun
29
29
2008
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

"What if God’s sovereignty comes via agency and authority and oversight more than some infinite crystal ball. What if he’s a hands-on God—the Hebrew God of history as opposed to the ontological God of the philosophers. What if God’s free will is paramount, his power to make the future is what makes him God." Amen. The God of Scripture is never described as "timeless." Instead, He is always described as "everlasting." This would, of course, mean that time is a convention instead of having existence. Of course, this does not preclude God from knowing every event that will come to pass. That would only be true if man had LFW. Instead, God knows the future because He has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.Saint and Sinner_{June 29, 2008
June
06
Jun
29
29
2008
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

Well, here’s the problem: any attempt to describe God through intellect leads to a divide between pure negation (Augustine) or pure action (Aquinas). And this is no less true of Open Theism than of the Calvinism that it resists. The capacity of intellect for judgment is a negative power. When any attempt is made to describe God by totalizing this power, the result is pure negation, as seen in Plato. God becomes impassive, devoid of emotion, changeless, utterly transcendent—in short, God becomes the same thing as pure intellect and its capacity to negate the value of existence. Now as we know it is possible for the philosophers to overcome this negation by describing God as pure reciprocal action, which is just what Aristotle did. But by negating the negation, the synthetic method always has the net effect of drawing God into being and depriving him of his differential power. Which seems to be the case with “dynamic omniscience.” God (out of love) enters into a dance, a reciprocal relation, with the creature he created and allows him to shape the very nature of being even as it is coming into being. But God cannot enter into this dance without forfeiting the difference between himself and the creature. “Dynamic” indicates pure action. “Dynamic omniscience” negates the negation of the value of being seen in Augustine and Calvin in order to facilitate a truly intimate relation with God, but this has the unfortunate effect of entangling God to some degree in his creature’s sinfulness and mortal limitations. Any effort to restore love to the center of our conversations about God is welcome, but Open Theism only goes half way, continuing to cling to the dividing power of reason and judgment, and thus replaying the same old theological divide.allanius_{June 29, 2008
June
06
Jun
29
29
2008
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

And I should add that of course time exists in some very real and very significant sense.Frost122585_{June 29, 2008
June
06
Jun
29
29
2008
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply