Park Street Church in Boston.David Opderbeck, at his blog Through a Glass Darkly, has been conversing with Daniel about the book and his ideas. The series has three parts so far (links below). And the rest of David's blog is worth some time as well.
Part 1: motivation and reception
Part 2: biblical inspiration and authority
Part 3: Adam and original sin
8 comments:
Excellent interview.
Welcome back, stranger.
;)
Blech. "How evolution can inspire faith?" More like "How faith can survive evolution if you squint really hard."
This book, like the Haarsmas Origins, provides strained rationalizations for Christians to cling to their fairy tales without completely abandoning science.
I guess it might be useful for a Christian biology prof trying to make room for his discipline in a culture of crappy science education. It does not, however, show how evolution can lead to an increase in faith. My experience is that a good evolution education far more likely to have the opposite effect.
More like "How faith can survive evolution if you squint really hard."
Only if you presuppose the argument from design is the main argument for the existence of God...which most atheists and Christians innocent of any exposure to philosophy (East or West) tend to do...
1) The faith he is defending is orthodox Biblical Christianity, not merely the existence of God.
2) Define "main argument". The argument from design is the one I hear most from Christians.
3) Some of us find philosophical arguments for God's existence, including the sophistry of Plantinga, unpersuasive. Your comment sounds like the Courtier's Reply to me.
Some of us find philosophical arguments for God's existence, including the sophistry of Plantinga, unpersuasive.
Acknowledged, but I am not a fan of Plantinga, either, precisely because he puts too much stock in the argument from design. I was thinking more of Brian Davies, the late H. McCabe, etc.
I guess it might be useful for a Christian biology prof trying to make room for his discipline in a culture of crappy science education. It does not, however, show how evolution can lead to an increase in faith.
So you weren't persuaded by the arguments in chapter 5? What about the discussion of death and souls in chapter 7? I found the discussion of the cross and "cruciform Christianity" in chapter 8 to be one of the most important points Daniel made. Maybe pick one of these ideas and explain why you found them so unconvincing. I'm just curious.
Anonymous probably didn't even read this book.
I was tempted to comment on this, too, but I've realized that it wouldn't be fair for me to do that unless I had actually tried to understand the author's ideas first.
Why no comments on the more recent posts?
Oh well, I'm forced to comment on your "Stealing It Back" post here instead. Perhaps I'll repost if you open up comments on that one.
I think you're glossing over the thing about evolution that troubles Christians the most. At least this is what troubles me most.....
It's not that evolution rules out God. You're right, of course, that it does not. It's what it says about God that's troubling.
If evolution is true, then it means that God chose a way to create our world that, while certainly very clever, is also fraught with suffering, death and extinction. And this went on for millions of years before original sin could take the blame.
Also, I worry about what your analysis of medical cures says about God, too. I think it means that God stands idly by and watches millions of years of death and disease until a human evolves that is clever enough to cure it.
I'm fine with that, but it makes me wonder why we spend so much time imploring God for individual cures and relief from suffering when the precedent would favor the conclusion that God is unlikely to intervene at all. I think that leaves us with wishful thinking when suffering does end and with attributing it to God's cleverness when Jonas Saulk finally gets around to curing polio.
That's certainly not the orthodoxy espoused by your original audience for this piece.
What's the difference between a God who chooses not to intervene to alleviate suffering, a God who doesn't care enough to intervene to alleviate suffering, and a God that is a figment of our wishful thinking imaginations?
Post a Comment