tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post176821045450348967..comments2023-10-29T08:04:00.488-07:00Comments on Quintessence of Dust: De-bunking, not debunkingStephen Mathesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-79107137754429038142008-01-10T20:27:00.000-07:002008-01-10T20:27:00.000-07:00Thanks everyone for a very stimulating discussion....Thanks everyone for a very stimulating discussion. I'm serious about a guest post by dbecke sometime.<BR/><BR/>To Paul:<BR/>I think dbecke already addressed your question, so I'll just affirm her/his response. People hold all sorts of beliefs that might be false and that can be shown to be wrong. (People like you and me.) Argumentation can, and should, persuade people to be separated from false beliefs. By "faith" I meant, as you suspected, something much bigger. What I meant by "faith" was the relationship with God through Christ that is made possible by conversion. We might call it "salvation," and my conviction is that people cannot be argued or reasoned away from life in Christ. Does that help?<BR/><BR/>dbecke, thanks for a very significant contribution to my blog. I accept your challenge, with the already-stated proviso that I am not a theologian and insist that it is not my job to craft an answer to the questions that necessarily arise when considering common ancestry between humans and other species. As you might know, I'm planning at least one project with a colleague (a philosopher) who shares the concerns that you raise.<BR/><BR/>You surmise that I do not believe in a "literal Adam" or that I assume that Adam was a representative. I guess those are my choices, but my answer to these questions is, "I don't know." I think it needs to be okay for Christians to admit that we don't know (yet) how the narrative of redemption fits with the narrative of natural history. The point that I've tried hard to make is that one should worry about a Christian who thinks that a clear understanding of Adam is prerequisite for a clear understanding of what it means to follow Christ. That's what my post about Romans 5 was all about.<BR/><BR/>And I worry a little about the tenor of our conversation; it does seem to me to misidentify the problem, if in fact evangelicals are at risk when confronting the facts of natural history. To me, that indicates an inadequate foundation <I>in Christ</I>. If the goal is to get me and other Christian scholars to "encourage the faith" of fellow Christians, I'm with you. One way to do that is to point people to Jesus, whether or not they're committed to certain interpretations of Genesis that are unverifiable scientifically. I can do that, and I think that's ultimately more important than speculating about how Adam and Eve might be related to extinct hominids.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I think I should post this once a month: I don't have a problem with people who <I>believe</I> in a young earth, or miraculous creation of every species, or in a global flood that destroyed land animals. I've endorsed, in fact, the approach of the Neocreationists. I'm <I>not</I> debunking any belief in the literal truth of any typical evangelical doctrine. I'm attacking sickeningly dishonest folk science employed in support of these beliefs. You might disagree, but I see a profound difference there.Stephen Mathesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-80273039850920219482008-01-04T11:10:00.000-07:002008-01-04T11:10:00.000-07:00Hey all--I'm on a mini-vacation right now, back la...Hey all--<BR/>I'm on a mini-vacation right now, back late Sunday. Will post some responses Monday. Thanks for the comments and discussion; I think I need to ask dbecke to write a guest post or two or ten.<BR/>SteveStephen Mathesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-77969962880504181162008-01-03T23:46:00.000-07:002008-01-03T23:46:00.000-07:00Predestination isn't a justification for anything....Predestination isn't a justification for anything. It has no predictive power whatsoever even if it is 100% true. Anything you could possibly say do, or not say or do could be labeled in the end "God's will." I thought everyone knew that.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-88345354535284864792008-01-03T18:23:00.000-07:002008-01-03T18:23:00.000-07:00paul said: So if faith is not founded on evidence...paul said: <EM>So if faith is not founded on evidence and critical thinking, and assuming faith is not simply blind devotion to dogma, then it seems to me that true faith is a pretty tight squeeze.</EM><BR/><BR/>Paul, I don't think anyone is defining faith this way. What (I think) we agree on is that all human claims to knowledge involve some unprovable presuppositions. The truth is that <EM>no</EM> knowledge claim is truly founded mostly on "evidence and critical thinking." <EM>All</EM> knowledge claims, even "scientific" ones, presuppose lots of stuff that can't be proven. <BR/><BR/>Faith involves some presuppositions about God and the universe that can't be proven. However, it <EM>also</EM> involves some historical claims for which there are good foundations (at least Christian faith does so), particularly with respect to the life, death and resurrection of Christ and the fruits of the life of faith in many generations of prior believers. Further, Christian faith involves claims about the way life and the universe are that (we argue) are coherent and sound.<BR/><BR/>Many of us with Reformed bents will not go so far as to suggest that any of these "evidences" for faith constitute "proof." Faith investigates reality, but it investigates a different aspect of reality than natural science, where empirical methods are more appropriate to the task.<BR/><BR/>Earlier in the comments I mentioned some books by British theologian Alister McGrath, who holds doctorates in biochemistry and theology -- "Intellectuals Don't Need God," "Doubting," and "Scientific Theology: Reality." These lay out this stuff in greater detail. I'd also suggest Roy Clouser, "Knowing With the Heart."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-45608066740092528772008-01-03T06:50:00.000-07:002008-01-03T06:50:00.000-07:00David said, "The biggest problem I see from creati...David said, "The biggest problem I see from creationism of all descriptions is that ultimately it will undermine the faith of many as it proposes to use science as a foundation for faith."<BR/><BR/>So if faith is <I>not</I> founded on evidence and critical thinking, and assuming faith is not simply blind devotion to dogma, then it seems to me that true faith is a pretty tight squeeze.<BR/><BR/>Help me understand how true faith pulls this off.Paul VanderLeihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02438858912394914415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-63666956156080364702008-01-02T20:35:00.000-07:002008-01-02T20:35:00.000-07:00A few thoughts prompted by your post.I was interes...A few thoughts prompted by your post.<BR/><BR/>I was interested in you post as a christian of many years, note not a scientist or theologian, most church preaching on the creation is, to my mind, mostly motivated by fear that science backs the atheist position. This then results in the spectrum of creationist positions that we see today. <BR/>Unfortunately I have found all to be unsatisfactory as an ultimate explanation for anything. Even if the evolutionary theory where conclusively disproved how does this prove their own position? <BR/>In like manner the atheist position using science as the proof for their position ultimately explains nothing. Both ends of this argument seem to ultimately rest on unsupported assumptions. <BR/><BR/>My understanding now after much searching on the creationist side and science journals I can understamd, is that I am profoundly ignorant like every one else. <BR/>As Job concluded after repenting "therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not".<BR/><BR/>I would hold that scientific study does not lead to any "truth" simply a collection of facts explained within frameworks, such as evolution. Frameworks which will be discarded when their usefulness is exhausted. <BR/><BR/>The biggest problem I see from creationism of all descriptions is that ultimately it will undermine the faith of many as it proposes to use science as a foundation for faith.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07561790335169151714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-59646787146374549632008-01-02T15:18:00.000-07:002008-01-02T15:18:00.000-07:00Steve, I appreciate this response. I am also a Ca...Steve, I appreciate this response. I am also a Calvinist, at least on Tuesdays, and except for the anabaptist social theory I so adore. I pretty much agree with you, then, that ultimately faith is a gift from God. <BR/><BR/>It's a mistake, however, to argue that arguments and reasons have no place with regard to faith -- not even the most ardent Van Tilian presuppositionalist takes that position (I am a Van Tilian -- again, at least on Tuesdays -- but not an ardent one. Actually, I'm a critical realist -- cf. Alister McGrath, in his Scientific Theology series). <BR/><BR/>Rather, in His providence, God sometimes uses arguments and reasons to support faith. (For a good discusion of all this from a moderate Reformed perspective, again I defer to my hero Alister McGrath, "Intellectuals Don't Need God (and Other Myths)" and McGrath, "Doubting.")<BR/><BR/>It's also a mistake -- a dreadful mistake, from my perspective as a fellow Christian scholar -- to argue that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints absolves Christian scholars of resonsibility for their teaching and writing. In God's providence, we as teachers and scholars are given opportunities to influence our students, the readers of our scholarship, and the readers of our blogs and other popular work. We may rightly believe that the ultimate question of a person's faith is decided in God's providence, but nevertheless God gives us the responsibility to act as though our witness to the gospel really does make a diference -- and in some way, mysteriously within the context of God's sovereignty, it does make a difference. (On this, see, e.g., J.I. Packer's "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God").<BR/><BR/>Further, even if we believe that a person's ultimate destiny cannot be changed by our actions, it seems clear that the quality of a person's faith and life can be deeply affected by what we do and say. Again, within the mystery of God's providence, God allows us to impact others for good or ill.<BR/><BR/>Now, I'm sure you don't really disagree with what I've said above -- otherwise, why would you be teaching at Calvin rather than at the many other institutions that undoubtedly could offer your more money, prestige, release time, etc.? I joke with a good friend who graduated from Calvin that he probably never studied or listened to his professors because the outcome was predestined -- whereas I, at an evangelical school with some Arminian a Catholic law school with some Pelagian teachers, had to work hard at it. But of course, that's a joke. You care about your institution, your students, the readers of this blog, your own children, because you believe you really make a difference.<BR/><BR/>Now, having said all that, I agree with you that it can be useful to help someone like your fictional "Sam" to grow in a faith that isn't weighed down by bad apologetic arguments or other false notions. And I whole-heartedly agree that the Church will benefit, particularly as against the Sam Harrises of the world, as we discard "childish things" and explore the truth of both God's word and His works openly.<BR/><BR/>Yet, it can be terribly damaging to someone like your fictional Sam -- emotionally and spiritually -- to confront such a challenge at the wrong time, without proper theological grounding, and without a community of discipleship prepared to help him work through the questions and crises that will arise.<BR/><BR/>This is particularly true, I think, when you are raising questions that implicate some very basic doctrinal issues. For example, the CRC denomination, which owns Calvin College, does not permit the teaching of human evolution as an official matter (though it allows "discussion" of it), primarily because of the importance in Reformed theology of Adam, original sin and the Fall. I'm guessing you don't believe Adam was a literal person, or if he was a real person that he was a representative selected from among a group of early humans who had evolved from earlier hominids. Confronting RTB's ideas as they relate to "Adam," then, is not simply a matter of scraping away some marginal argumentation. You are suggesting that Christians should significantly rethink the traditional Augustinian position on original sin and that reformed Christians should hold positions in tension with their history and denominational creeds. Perhaps the evidence from the book of nature is such that it is now time for that kind of rethinking, but our theological and denominational leaders aren't anywhere near there yet. <BR/><BR/>As a result, the sincere average Christian who wants to think honestly through these things is left without a safety net when all we do is debunk. In my view, it is the responsibility of the Christian scholar who debunks to at the same time provide resources that support and encourage the faith of those whose old ideas are thereby challenged.<BR/><BR/>Let me offer a little personal testimony to wrap this up. I've been an active Christian leader in various capacities for almost 30 years. My faith has had its ups and downs, but never have I been so challenged as I have been over the past two years, when I undertook a serious study of faith-science questions. When I say "challenged," I mean <EM>"challenged to the point of hysterical sobbing, weeks without sleep, neglect of work and family, seek medical help"</EM> kind of challenged. I think, by God's grace, that this is all working out for good -- but only as I've begun to realize the importance of community and support in all this. Thank God I'm finding people who not only debunk, but who've been through this before me and who are willing to work through the issues in an almost pastoral way. I wish I'd found people like that right at the start, rather than running headlong into the angry malestrom I first found on a Christian theistic evolution forum (of which, Steve, you were not a part, I should note.).<BR/><BR/>Finally, I think we would do well when debunking to remember that we are <EM>all</EM> pitifully incompetent when it comes to understanding God. Imagine if God himself chose to "debunk" us. Even our best efforts to express who God is -- including our best scientific efforts to explain how His creation works -- would be revealed as bunk compared to His knowledge and wisdom. <EM>All</EM> of us know God and understand His works only analogically, through the highly limiting faculties of human perception and human reason. At best, we build perishable models that capture and express some portion of the whole reality to which God alone as access (again, see McGrath on critical realism and scientific and theological models). If we debunk the views of a brother or sister in Christ, we ought to do it with the humble acknowledgment that our own efforts to explain things are also limited and provisional.<BR/><BR/>Well, forgive me for the long comment, but I offer it because I feel passionately both about what you're working on and about the pastoral concerns it raises.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-82226697650833086972008-01-02T09:55:00.000-07:002008-01-02T09:55:00.000-07:00I like your post and the allegory at the end, too....I like your post and the allegory at the end, too. And I certainly agree that faith that is based on bogus claims is not worth having in the first place.<BR/><BR/>But I must be missing your point when you say this:<BR/><BR/>"I don't believe that people are won to faith by reason, and conversely I don't believe that people can be separated from Christ by argumentation."<BR/><BR/>But surely people can be separated from <I>false</I> faith by argumentation, right? Faith in Papal infallibility or in Mary's power to help us? Faith in Joseph Smith's revelation?<BR/><BR/>So it seems like you're saying that your brand of faith is not susceptible to argumentation? So it can't possibly be wrong??<BR/><BR/>But you might argue that I'm conflating faith with belief in doctrine. So perhaps it's time you told us what exactly you mean by "faith." Assuming you agree that the Papal/Mary/Joseph Smith beliefs do not constitute "true" faith.Paul VanderLeihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02438858912394914415noreply@blogger.com