Courting the Theists
by Steve PetermannOne of the strategies of ID critics seems to be an attempt to convince theists that a Darwinian form of evolution is fully compatible with their belief system. There are many examples of this in books and on the web: here, here, here, and particularly here. Now the focus of this blog is not normally on theology, but since theology is being used as an argument it bears a closer look. Is Darwinian evolution compatible with mainstream theism? Do the ID critics present a fair and complete argument for this supposed compatibility or is the case incomplete and possibly misleading? These are the questions I would like to pursue. First a bit on theism in general.
Read the rest of this entry >>
October 23rd, 2005 at 7:32 am
Hi Steve,
Nice article. From my PoV the biggest issue for TE's should be there isn't any difference between a "God" which "created" via blindwatchmaker-type processes and no "God" at all.
It appears the ID critics who think it is OK- NDE and reigion are compatable- must fully believe religion is 100% blind faith. And even though I have major issues with religions I understand as Einstein did:
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
But as for NDE and Christianity, well "Christian" evolutionists have quite a bit to explain:
Comment by Joe G — October 23, 2005 @ 7:32 am
October 23rd, 2005 at 8:00 am
Here's an illuminating quote by heavy weight conservative theologian Charles Hodge in trying to come to grips with evolutionary theory and the creation narrative in Genesis - "it is most natural to understand day in its ordinary sense, but if that sense brings the mosaic account into conflict with (scientific/evoltionary) facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt the other".
Comment by willo — October 23, 2005 @ 8:00 am
October 23rd, 2005 at 8:18 am
Particle physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne, whom you quoted, Steve, has pointed to several interesting problems with NDE. Here's a quote from "The Faith of a Physicist," for example:
"Someone like Richard Dawkins can present persuasive pictures of how the sifting and accumulation of small differences can produce large-scale developments, but, instinctively, a physical scientist would like to see an estimate, however rough, of how many small steps take us from a slightly light-sensitive cell to a fully-formed insect eye, and of approximately the number of generations required for the necessary mutations to occur. One is only looking for an order of magnitude answer, comparable in crudity to the back-of-the-envelope calculations of early cosmologists, but our biological friends tell us, without any apparent anxiety, that it just can't be done. So much of evolutionary argument seems to be that 'it's happened and so it must have happened this way'" (p. 16 f.).
[By the way, I'm impressed with the biological knowledge displayed on this site. But I'm bracing myself now for a lot of poorly thought out theology!]
Comment by Lutepisc — October 23, 2005 @ 8:18 am
October 23rd, 2005 at 8:50 am
Willo:
Here's an illuminating quote by heavy weight conservative theologian Charles Hodge in trying to come to grips with evolutionary theory and the creation narrative in Genesis "“ "it is most natural to understand day in its ordinary sense, but if that sense brings the mosaic account into conflict with (scientific/evoltionary) facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt the other".
Great point! That is why BOTH sides of the Einstein quote are important. To that end, and this is the opposite of Steve's OP, Creationists are finally putting their scientific ante on the table and demonstrating it is very possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Creationist and here is the scientific data that verifies that (in the scientific sense). Then continue to parade Pasteur, Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Kopernik, et al., around at the evidence that confirms just that. Is what the RATE group doing really scientific research?
Sorry Steve, back to your OP. Do you, or anyone, believe this, the tactic of convincing theists that NDE and theism are OK with each other, is in direct response to the recent polls about the topic of evolution? As well as damage control for the latest to come out about evolution from the Catholic church? Plus the added weight of Kitzmiller v. Dover SB…
Or is it just a coincidence.
Comment by Joe G — October 23, 2005 @ 8:50 am
October 23rd, 2005 at 10:01 am
Hi Lutepisc,
Yes I've read the book and I was really a bit surprised when I saw the Epsicopals (neodeists?) who wrote the catechism use the Polkinghorne quote. I greatly respect Polkinghorne and I wouldn't categorized him as a neodeist. In fact his idea of active information as a mechanism for divine action seems at good candidate to me. I was also surprised to see an Arthur Peacocke quoted but not as surprised. Perhaps they are using these quotes without the individuals actually endorsing the document itself.
You won't see a lot of "poorly thought out theology" or otherwise here because this is not a theology site. I'm sure it will come up from time to time but not on a regular basis.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 23, 2005 @ 10:01 am
October 23rd, 2005 at 12:14 pm
Zindler's argument is bogus. It goes astray at this point "“ "If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation." Traditional Christian teaching argues that each individual is in need of salvation because of each individual's sins. There is no person alive who does not sin and can stop sinning. A TE could thus argue that even if Adam and Eve never existed, this does not mean we are somehow without sin. We would still be in need of salvation.
Comment by MikeGene — October 23, 2005 @ 12:14 pm
October 23rd, 2005 at 2:51 pm
MikeGene:
Zindler's argument is bogus. It goes astray at this point "“ "If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation." Traditional Christian teaching argues that each individual is in need of salvation because of each individual's sins. There is no person alive who does not sin and can stop sinning. A TE could thus argue that even if Adam and Eve never existed, this does not mean we are somehow without sin. We would still be in need of salvation.
But Jesus referred to Adam & Eve as real people and the original sin event as if it too were real.
That leaves the only reason Jesus died on the cross was to be resurrected. A brutal and very public execution, followed by a disappearance could be used as evidence for just that. Looked at that way Jesus was resurrected and those who wish can also be resurrected, in spirit and in faith through his example. IOW it isn't the crucifixtion people should be fixated with.
(I was taught the reason Jesus "had to die" was because the burden of the "original sin" was to "over-the-top" to lay onto newborns. But now they actually have a period in which to learn and choose.)
I would argue there are people who have not sinned, for what sin can a baby commit? However it MG is referring to once one has started they can't stop, that would be a bold premise indeed. What is "sin"
(Note: there is a difference between a TE and a CE- Christian evolutionist. A Christian believes salvation only can come through Jesus.)
Comment by Joe G — October 23, 2005 @ 2:51 pm
October 23rd, 2005 at 5:30 pm
Joe, you raise an important point re the importance for Adam and Eve , the original sin is a crucial plank for understanding the need for salvation as the original sin from A&E on is imputed to the rest of mankind (Gen8:21, Ps 51:5, Rom 3:23). What is sin? At its core it is a rejection of God as our Lord and ruler exemplified by A&E. Lying, stealing e.t.c are manifestations of this core problem and as the argument goes you don't have to teach a child how to be selfish.
Under this hermeneutic the need for Jesus death is crystal clear, he dies a substitutionary death that we deserve: 1Pet 1:24 "he bore our sins in is body on the tree". We are not saved then by following his example but trusting in his work on our behalf for which we are "justified" (Rom 3:24).
Henri blocher is a theistic evolutionists who tries to get around the A&E issue by arguing that the first couple of chapters of Genesis are kind of like a parable and what we see is an account of an historical fall but not an historical account of the fall. He tries hard but he can't account for how the rest of us were infected with sin if there were millions more of us around at the same time.
But without imputed sin suddenly we're left with a much more optomistic view of humunkind, one who can achieve perfection and salvation through their own efforts and without need for Jesus substitutionary death for salvation!
Comment by willo — October 23, 2005 @ 5:30 pm
October 23rd, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Sorry that's 1Pet 2:24 for those with a good book handy.
Comment by willo — October 23, 2005 @ 7:08 pm
October 23rd, 2005 at 7:09 pm
g arago:
Why not discover how ID is being rejected by theologians as much as it is being rejected by scientists?
I would bet ID rejection is directly related to ID understanding.
g arago:
The id camp has erected many false dichotomies and flimsy caricatures about those who accept the natural science of evolution at the same time that they accept the sovereignty of God the creator in their personal and social lives.
Perhaps you can tell me the difference between a "God" that "creates" via blindwatchmaker-type processes and no "God" at all.
Comment by Joe G — October 23, 2005 @ 7:09 pm
October 23rd, 2005 at 7:50 pm
It's easy to question other people's understanding from the passive, disconnected world of the internet. The fact is, they are still rejecting it, while others are calling for a 'scientific revolution' in today's America. Ladies and gentlemen, it's 'the controversy': polemics, courting and competition at both their finest and crudest.
So you think those eight theistic evolutionists or evolutionary creationists, i.e. religious persons that I listed above [edit: that post is now gone] who accept evolution, even Darwinian evolution in parts are espousing 'blindwatchmaker-type processes'? I don't think you would find that if you studied their words and ideas about evolution, philosophy, theology and their areas of scientific expertise. Where did Joe G get that idea?
Arago
p.s. Was it the suggestion that Telic Thoughts add a category called either 'theology' or 'theism' to this blog which could be helpful for threads such as this one that upset someone and led to post deletion?
Comment by g arago — October 23, 2005 @ 7:50 pm
October 23rd, 2005 at 8:15 pm
JoeG :
Well, is it not the Bible that teaches all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God? I am pointing out that even if A&E were not historical figures, that does not suddenly mean we are without sin. Take away A&E, and the causal explanation for our sinful state becomes obscure, but the reality of our sinful state remains.
I'm simply pointing out that Zindler's argument doesn't hold water. Zindler would have to make the case that Christian theology is all about Christ coming to die for A&E's sins.
Comment by MikeGene — October 23, 2005 @ 8:15 pm
October 23rd, 2005 at 9:29 pm
Steve, I would answer that once the theistic and even deistic people delve deeper and examine their position, they will see that logically it cannot be held. In my opinion, the evolutionist philosophy of the mainstream, i.e., those who consider it an error in understanding to ascribe to any nonaccidental or teleological processes, is fundamentally incompatible with religion or spirituality.
Yes. Behe in his testimony at Dover quotes Miller's understanding of God and miracles, and I find it shallow, magical thinking. There is a complete disconnect in his mind between God and all the rest of reality. A blind watchmaker hypothesis is not only no different than no God at all, it is a logical absurdity. Well, not quite. One might suppose that God set up a universe with the capacity to evolve into a world like ours without having to meddle subsequently, but the existence of any God at all completely negates the atheistic, nonteleological, accidental philosophy.
We do not have to interpret Adam and Eve as being one man and woman. And the fall of man itself has interesting possibilities as to what it really means. And if people fell away from God, either at a certain point in their development, or at some turning point in their decisions, then that could be the start of 'sin.' Adam and Eve could be a metaphor or archetype, or even a specific human pair that were instrumental in some decision or process that started humanity off on the trajectory in which they lost their close connection to God. Restoring that connection is salvation. As to not needing salvation, since people feel the need of it, they must need it.
I think I mentioned once that the materialist scientists as a whole seem to be reacting to the more foolish and shallow aspects of relgion from an earlier era. Because they dislike religion, their spiritual thinking is shallow.
Being resurrected was pretty important, no? In the eastern Orthodox Church, which is arguably 1700-2,000 years old and is the 2nd largest church in the world,they consider the doctrine that Jesus had to die in order for God to forgive humanity to be a pernicious and ugly doctine. They state it is a Catholic error arising from the Roman feudal laws of knighthood.
Not all churches teach original sin. The Orthodox states something closer to what Mike says - we definitely are somehow infected with the tendency to sin, and our nature is fallen, but we do not inherit anyone's else's sin.
Probably a poorly functioning right temporal lobe. In other words, feeling far from God.
And Willo, I looked all your references, and I do not see the need to interpret them as you do.
I don't follow.
Comment by onething — October 23, 2005 @ 9:29 pm
October 23rd, 2005 at 10:53 pm
Hi onething:
My point is simply this if we do not inherit sin then we are born either neutral or 'good', and an argument can be made that we are able to save ourselves under our own steam (see Pelagian controversy and Arminianism).
You see this interpretation in some denominations (you mentioned the Orthodox Church)and you will also find in them thanks to their more optimistic view of the human condition that Jesus life and death is an example to be followed to achieve salvation, rather than seeing ourselves as "dead in transgressions and sins", salvation only coming through faith in Jesus work on our behalf (see Ephesians 2:1-9).
btw I wasn't asking you or anyone to interpret the scriptures as I do only to consider that without an historical A&E, an understanding that sin is imputed is severly undermined as is understanding Jesus death as a substiutionary atonement. There are huge ramifications here therefore for how one understands the human condition, Jesus ministry and how we achieve salvation.
Comment by willo — October 23, 2005 @ 10:53 pm
October 24th, 2005 at 12:06 am
Hello Willo,
Certainly I support Palagius more than Augustine. Don't know much about Arminisnism except it states Jesus died for all men. I would agree.
You seem to praise the pessimistic view!
I do see Jesus life as an example to be followed, but also more than that. We are supposed to become like Christ. Don't we need a leader and an example?
I understand you have been taught to believe as you do. I would call your theology materialistic. It is a very earthly, uninspiring and juridical interpretation.
I call your theology materialistic because it assumes that salvation must be paid for according to legal rules. Oh, sure, if you're a Protestant you'll say that you are not saved by deeds, but by grace. Nonetheless you must pay for that grace. There was nothing illogical about the Catholic church granting indulgences. It was corrupt, but not illogical according to that theological understanding. There has been no reformation.
The belief that we inherit a sinful nature is not the same as inheriting guilt. To believe that God imputes guilt to one generation for the sins of another is incompatible with either love, justice, ethics or logic. It makes of God one who is not even up to the par of a decent human being. One of the reasons Christianity has failed so dismally as a religion is that the God it teaches people about does not inspire the best in human behavior, does not inspire people to go beyond themselves. Why should they?
Why do you prefer to much that we inherit guilt and sin when we have enough of our own? Must things be even worse than they are?
I would like very much to undermine the understanding that Jesus was a substitutionary atonement.
If we take St. John's gospel at its word, then God is love. If God is love, then all is love. If we are lost, it is through loss of love. If we are reconciled, it is through love, not payment. It is love that causes inner transformation, and that transformation is what salvation is.
Comment by onething — October 24, 2005 @ 12:06 am
October 24th, 2005 at 2:51 am
Hi onething:
Just want to refer you to my final paragraph. I'm not espousing substitionary atonement e.t.c here in fact my persoanl view is irrelevant. I gave some references just to show that imputed sin & sub aton is not novel! It is well supported in the Scriptures and also within Christendom (I agree its not the only view). I simply make the point that without a commitment to an historical A&E there are serious ramifications for this view of which perhaps you should be pleased.
However, there are a few things that you said in your post which maybe need further thought, e.g can you have sin with guilt? Surely guilt is a by product of sin!
Also the idea that God is love is something I agree with but, but surely this does not exclude justice and judgement afterall if there is a God surely we would want see the likes of Hitler, Polpot et al called to account! My point, justice and love are not mutually exclusive, and the sub aton deals with this very issue seeing mercy triumph without a compromise in God's justice.
Comment by willo — October 24, 2005 @ 2:51 am
October 24th, 2005 at 7:15 am
Correction - sin without guilt? 2nd paragraph
Comment by willo — October 24, 2005 @ 7:15 am
October 24th, 2005 at 7:24 am
Leaving aside the theology, the Catholic church has made its peace with evolution. That's about one quarter of all American Christians. (About 50 percent world wide.)
All of the liberal protestant groups have also made their peace with evolution. I'd guestimate that about half the Christians in America have no problem with evolution.
The problem is with the conservative Christians who don't believe evolution is true, but who say that NO Christian believes so. It just aint true.
Comment by DataDoc — October 24, 2005 @ 7:24 am
October 24th, 2005 at 9:11 am
DataDoc:
Leaving aside the theology, the Catholic church has made its peace with evolution. That's about one quarter of all American Christians. (About 50 percent world wide.)
That is not true. I know many Catholics who are Creationists. It would be a safe bet that Catholic Creationists outnumber Catholic evolutionists at least 2 to 1. And it would be a safer bet that many of those "evolutionists" are not of the blindwatchmaker variety.
DataDoc:
The problem is with the conservative Christians who don't believe evolution is true, but who say that NO Christian believes so. It just aint true.
The issue is there is a huge problem with the Christians' religious doctrine if NDE is true. The two go together about as well oil and water.
———————————————————————-
MikeGene:
I'm simply pointing out that Zindler's argument doesn't hold water. Zindler would have to make the case that Christian theology is all about Christ coming to die for A&E's sins.
Your PoV is interesting. However it does conflict with what I was taught- that Jesus did come to die for, not only our sins to date, but most importantly that "original sin" committed by A&E.
"˜For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him' (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Comment by Joe G — October 24, 2005 @ 9:11 am
October 24th, 2005 at 10:27 am
Joe, if you were taught that "Jesus came to die…most importantly for the 'original sin' committed by Adam and Eve," then I would characterize your church as a fundamentalist church.
"Adam and Eve" are viewed by mainline theologians as prototypical humans, rather than as historical figures. The creation and fall narrative in Genesis is viewed as a portrayal of human existence, rather than as a description of some events which happened to two individuals at a single point in history. The narrative is meant to convey truths about God and humans in story form, not to report events as a news reporter might report them. As you may know, "Adam" is the Hebrew word for "man." (It's not just some guy's name…)
As G.K. Chesterton said, "The only Christian doctrine for which there is empirical evidence is that of original sin." "Original sin" is a doctrine about humankind, not an event. The phenomenon is what Freud described as "the id," and what St. Augustine many centuries earlier described as our innate tendency to be "incurvatus in se" (curved inward upon the self). If readers would like to learn more about the doctrine, they are invited to check it out here. I also happened to find a nicely-done web page on the topic here.
Mainline Christian theologians have long ago made peace with evolution's historical narrative. This was apart of Steve's original point, I believe. What we have not made peace with is the notion that the whole process "did not have us in mind," as Dawkins puts it, and that our origin and destiny as humans are arbitrary and meaningless.
Dembski has written a helpful piece about this same issue, entitled, "What Every Theologian Should Know about Creation, Evolution, and Design". Those who are interested in this topic are invited to check it out.
Comment by Lutepisc — October 24, 2005 @ 10:27 am
October 24th, 2005 at 11:59 am
Yes I was brought up Catholic and went to Catholic schools. I fully understand Christianity and that is why I can say with full confidence that I am not a Christian. That other people cannot be as honest and open as that should not impress people.
But anyway- IF (yes big if) humans were the intent of "God"- ie "God" created via evolution but humans were an ultimate intent- that blows away any rendition of a blindwatchmaker- except for a blindwatchmaker with sight, resources and purpose.
IOW what is this courtship based on? Is it based on the premise that ID is a common enemy- Which itself is based on ID = YEC?
What belief system, other than atheism, is fully compatable with a blindwatchmaker? Please explain.
Or is NDE OK with purpose & intent?
Comment by Joe G — October 24, 2005 @ 11:59 am
October 24th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
"Is Darwinian evolution compatible with mainstream theism? Do the ID critics present a fair and complete argument for this supposed compatibility or is the case incomplete and possibly misleading?""”Steve Peterman
If the question is truly about "Darwinian evolution" then we might inquire as to what Darwin thought. I don't think there is any real question about that. Darwin plainly stated that his theory was absolutely incompatible with "mainstream theism" as he understood it. He was in a position to make such an assessment, since he was educated to be an Anglican pastor.
Indeed, when Darwin writes that he had demolished the "old argument from design," he plainly means that he had demolished one of the traditional arguments for the existence of God. There is reason to believe that he thought his argument was sweeping and decisive. When he says he could "see" no design at all, I think we are not far wrong in concluding that for Darwin that meant he could see no evidence of the existence of God.
And Darwin's position on the matter has been deliberately and consistently misrepresented ever since, beginning with the gutting of the patently anti-religious sentiments he expressed in his Autobiography. Darwin himself purposefully misrepresented his position (Darwin lied) with his famous closing passage of Origin, about the "Creator" breathing life into life forms one or a few. Darwin did not believe in a Creator. He did not believe God created life. The members of the "X-Club" even urged Darwin to revise the passage to truly represent his views, which he refused to do.
Darwin did muddle a bit over the idea that maybe God created the universe (and thereby indirectly created life), but he also wrote that he saw no evidence of such, and there is no reason to believe that he took the very idea seriously or considered it a real possibility.
Darwin himself was not a "theistic evolutionist." If one could put people's beliefs on a scale from theist through agnostic to atheist, Darwin certainly falls closer to what I would call an atheist than an agnostic. He is certainly no theist.
Comment by Rock — October 24, 2005 @ 12:11 pm
October 25th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Joe G says Or is NDE OK with purpose & intent?
Its simple, Joe. The whole universe reflects God's purpose and intent; so when you go searching for it in the details, its like you are a dustmite with a microscope looking for subtle hints of God when you are living within the groove of his fingerprint.
Lets take an example for something random which is completely noncontroversial: the roll of the dice. Unless the dice are loaded (which can be detected empirically) each number has just as high a likelihood of coming up as any other. Does that mean that God has no idea what number will come up when you roll the dice, or that the dice roll can thwart his intent for the universe? Of course not; God already knows everything that is ever going to happen because he is omniscient, and everything that happens serves his purpose because he is the omnipotent creator of the universe.
The same thing is true of evolution; just as God doesn't have to load the dice in an empirically detectable manner for him to know what the dice roll will be and for the dice roll to serve his purpose, mutations which are random with regard to fitness as far as we can tell are also already known to him, and serve his purpose as well, even though we can't empirically verify his manipulation of events. God doesn't have to manipulate natural events in the universe because he conceived them in the first place. God's rule over the universe is self evident to all because something can't exist for no reason; you don't have to be a scientist to know that. God didn't intend for faith to be replaced by scientism, the assurance from experts that they can empirically ascertain the scientific necessity for God.
NDE has no position on whether the universe is ultimately ruled by God because that isn't a scientific question; its a religious one. Like any scientific theory, its only concerned with what can be tested empirically. We know God rules the universe because of our faith, not because of science. And its not blind faith, because its only the blind who can look at the universe and not recognize that there must be a reason for it to exist.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 25, 2005 @ 3:14 pm
October 25th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Your theological conclusions seem to me to be questionable. So you seem to be in favor of tenseless time theology. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but to suggest that such is the only way to view God's relationship to time is not correct. I'm not going to go into detail over it, but if you read "God and Time: 4 views" (Ed. Ganssle) you will find that your stance is not the only discernable one.
On the otherhand, you act as if Darwinism is valid since God is omniscienct and thus he can accomplish his will through random processes. First of all, this view to me does not seem to necessarily follow from your theological view of God and time. Your view of creation seems more consistent with a God working with and in time, rather than a God removed thereof. Surely, as a timeless adherent, you understand that a timeless God wills his intentions from one eternal state into many different points in our temporal universe? This of course is fully consistant with a view of creation ex nihilo where if God wills the existance of homo sapiens sapiens at, say, time t3 then God working from outside time needs no temporal or biological precursors from say t2 or t1 to work from. Your God of Creation, Aagcobb, appears to be front-loader, temporal God, not a timeless one.
Secondly, I would disagree with your view that Darwinism is valid view if God exists at all. I've written before (not here):
Finally, I think even design of a temporal, front-loading God is still detectable, and in a sense testable. Again, as I've written before:
As I see it, the frontloading design is like one setting dominoes up so that they will fall in some kind of pattern. Of course, such foreknowledge would be more akin to setting up trillions of dominoes to fall in an elegant pattern!
And of course ultimately this design is, though natural, contrary to Dawkins, is not blind or purposeless. In fact, those random mutations are not even truely random given their pre-set pattern, and so Darwinism isn't really very valid. And it seems Intelligent Design still is…
Comment by Dane Parker — October 25, 2005 @ 4:46 pm
October 25th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
Joe G says Or is NDE OK with purpose & intent?
Aacobb:
Its simple, Joe. The whole universe reflects God's purpose and intent; so when you go searching for it in the details, its like you are a dustmite with a microscope looking for subtle hints of God when you are living within the groove of his fingerprint.
You are singing to the choir. The Privileged Planet makes it clear the evidence is much more than you let on. It is in the details of macro-molecules that seals the deal. We work with what we we have.
Aacobb:
Lets take an example for something random which is completely noncontroversial: the roll of the dice. Unless the dice are loaded (which can be detected empirically) each number has just as high a likelihood of coming up as any other. Does that mean that God has no idea what number will come up when you roll the dice, or that the dice roll can thwart his intent for the universe? Of course not; God already knows everything that is ever going to happen because he is omniscient, and everything that happens serves his purpose because he is the omnipotent creator of the universe.
Whatever dude.
Aacobb:
The same thing is true of evolution; just as God doesn't have to load the dice in an empirically detectable manner for him to know what the dice roll will be and for the dice roll to serve his purpose, mutations which are random with regard to fitness as far as we can tell are also already known to him, and serve his purpose as well, even though we can't empirically verify his manipulation of events.
What's your point? Are you trying to say to not even bother looking or that which has been empirically inferred really couldn't be? And with fitness being an arbitrary target what good is it as a reference? I mean there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time.
Also even if you were right and we couldn't detect a direct manipulation, why infer otherwise given what we do know?
Aacobb:
God doesn't have to manipulate natural events in the universe because he conceived them in the first place. God's rule over the universe is self evident to all because something can't exist for no reason; you don't have to be a scientist to know that. God didn't intend for faith to be replaced by scientism, the assurance from experts that they can empirically ascertain the scientific necessity for God.
I doubt you would know what "God" intended. So let's not go there. And what is the difference in what "God" had to do?
And what is your obsession with "God"? As far as I am concerned "God" created the entities which designed the universe and life. It does not affect the fact that the design is and has been empirically detected.
Aacobb:
NDE has no position on whether the universe is ultimately ruled by God because that isn't a scientific question; its a religious one.
But this has nothing to do with my point. I could also argue it is a philosophical rather than religious question.
Aacobb:
Like any scientific theory, its only concerned with what can be tested empirically.
Not much of NDE can be tested empirically.
Aacobb:
We know God rules the universe because of our faith, not because of science.
Just don't include me in your "we". "Argue for your limitations, and they are yours." Richard Bach in "Illusions".
Aacobb:
And its not blind faith, because its only the blind who can look at the universe and not recognize that there must be a reason for it to exist.
But there appear to be many "blind". Do we cull the blind from the herd?
Comment by Joe G — October 25, 2005 @ 7:00 pm
October 25th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
One thing that I think is important to remember is that when it comes to theology and religious philosophy there is a vast history of thought. Aagcobb is gravitating to just one line of thinking, which sounds to me like a classic theism/deism where there is a strong ontological distinction between God and the cosmos. However, there are many other ways of characterizing this relationship that do not strike a strong ontological distinction. Panentheism in thiestic thought and non-dualism in Eastern thought reject this strong distinction. Since I find some form of panentheism most amenable to a worldview that is science friendly, I have not found the "omni" characteristics that coherent accept by pointing to the aseity of God. In some theistic monism thought the principal of kenosis is in play where God is self-limiting with respect to life. I call this the divine life where God lives and accepts upon Godself in one aspect the limitations of finitude and temporality. Unlike pantheism this does not deny the abysmal character of God in God's depth.
I have found that most Darwinists and atheists have a disadvantage in that very few have studied theology or religious philosophy in any depth. This often means that they have an ingrained caricature of religious thought. This also focuses their attacks on theism towards the "weak sister" of religious thought when there are many profound religious thinkers that exhibit deep understandings of the issues of science and religion.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 25, 2005 @ 8:50 pm
October 25th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
Hi Steve,
One of the articles you pointed to mentioned Dr. Paul Julienne on the Episcopal commitee. He is a NIST physicist and friend and co-worker of Nobel Laureate Bill Phillips. I'm a long time friend of one of Dr. Julienne's children.
His sentiments are that biotic reality is immensley complex and suggestive that an intelligence was at work. He comes to our IDEA meetings.
He is also a part of Truro Episcopal, the church where biology professor Caroline Crocker attends and teaches Sunday school. Crocker's husband is also a pastor at that church. There are several other professors that attend that church as well.
I point this out to say that some of the literature to reconcile Darwinism with Theism does not necessarily come from ID critics, but ID leaning individuals who are critics of creationism.
I don't think Caroline Crocker nor Paul Julienne are creationists, but have, especially recently, strong sympathies toward intelligent design. I think the Episcopal/Anglican view I run into the most is represented by Polkinhorne: Strong belief in the Nicean Creed, but believes in common descent.
So some of the courting literature is not so much to IDists but specifically to IDists who are also creationists. ID is generally anti-Darwinian, but does not rule it out as a mechanism used by the designer.
What we have is very complicated demographic. We had IDists who believe in cosmolgical design, who believe in Darwinian evolution, would consider themselves theists and IDists, but would be critical of creationists.
Eugenie Scott and company often will appeal to this group to help promote the continue teaching of evolution, even though, I think she herself does not share those views.
Regarding your question:
I think a very reluctant yes in the sense that if Darwinism is true, God could still exist. Darwinsm is not compatible however with specific theologies like the theological doctrine of special creation. Many like myself are theists because of belief in ID and special creation, not the other way around.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 25, 2005 @ 9:46 pm
October 26th, 2005 at 12:10 am
Hey Sal,
To be honest I'm really puzzled by the acceptance of things like the Episcopal creation catechism by so called theists and especially if as you say some have ID sympathies. I don't get it. (if I'm missing the part in the catechism that affirms God's intentionality in evolution, please point it out to me) The only thing I can figure is that either they don't get the entailments of this picture of a maintenance person God or as I mentioned in the essay they adopt some strange contrivance relative to divine action. I can perfectly understand a strong commitment to developing a worldview that is science friendly but to claim that God is non-intentional relative to the emergence of biotic reality and then turn around and believe in the efficacy of things like prayer seems like a step for some sort of expedience. What would be the theological justification for cordoning off segments of reality from divine intentional activity?
I don't consider merely belief in God the litmus test for mainstream theism. That would be for deism. Mainstream theism requires much more than that. It makes a commitment to an active, intentional God.
I consider the doctrines of special providence also incompatible with Darwinism.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 26, 2005 @ 12:10 am
October 26th, 2005 at 1:45 am
Sal,
Even the Darwinism (which I think is the real Darwinism) that believes all the cosmos and the first life form arose by chance? There is no room for God in that.
Steve,
What is that doctrine?
Comment by onething — October 26, 2005 @ 1:45 am
October 26th, 2005 at 8:14 am
If "they" really want to court the theists "they" had better control statements like the following from Wm. Provine:
"I find that evolution is the most effective engine of atheism ever invented by humans, and I think the creationists are really afraid of something,"
True I did not find how or if he substantiates that claim but that is not the point.
Comment by Joe G — October 26, 2005 @ 8:14 am
October 26th, 2005 at 9:39 am
Hi onething,
I consider the doctrines of special providence also incompatible with Darwinism.
Maybe doctrine is too strong a word but typically in mainstream theism divine action is understood in two forms, general and special providence. General providence would cover things like the sustainance of natural order, general teleology, etc. Special providence would be considered God's activity for individuals, in such things like answering prayer, santification, miracles, the sacraments, etc.
If the metaphysics of Darwinism is extrapolated to all of life then it would preclude special providence and even perhaps some activity normally falling under general providence.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 26, 2005 @ 9:39 am
October 26th, 2005 at 10:03 am
I thoroughly agree. For example, Polkinhorne confesses and believes the Nicene Creed. Virgin birth and ressurection of the dead are as close to special creation as it gets. I will say however that I'm seeing a general warming toward ID in those circles. The scientific arguments are winning the day over theology. Crocker for example was an evolutionist for a long time, the student of a pro-Evolution author and discoverer of interferon, Derek Burke. Her own research however in her specialty of immuno-pharmacology caused an eventual change of heart.
Polkinhorne's endorsement of Denton's last book, Nature's Destiny was a move toward ID. And Polkinhorne gives an account of his prayer for healing in the book, Healing Throuh Prayer. So even though Darwinists are courting theists, those who are Theistic Evolutionists (excpet for the likes of Ken Miller and Keith Miller) are finding themselves slowly warming to ID. I certainly don't see them going the other way!
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 26, 2005 @ 10:03 am
October 26th, 2005 at 11:39 am
One thing I haven't seen pointed out too often (if ever) is that Darwinism, in its strongest sense, isn't even compatible with deism. By "strongest sense" I include the idea that humans were formed through an entirely material process of random variation and natural selection, with the implication being that we are "survival machines". Under this view, we don't ever do anything for "reasons", nor do we have "beliefs". Such normative entities don't actually exist, and everything we do can be fully described in mechanical terms. Thus, words like "person" and "self" aren't really describing anything real (actually, under this view, no words have actual meaning, but that's getting a bit deeper than I need to go now). Rather, "we" are just automatons, our every activity the result of functionalist Darwinian programming using our surroundings as input.
Now, when we describe God, what do we mean? Well, at the most basic level, we are at least referring to someone who is a person, or self, like us, but much greater. However, if we aren't describing a real concept when we talk about persons, then we aren't really describing anything when we talk about God either. Hence, to say that the above is true of us, but that God exists, is a non-statement. Deism, in that sense, isn't even a coherent concept.
Comment by Deuce — October 26, 2005 @ 11:39 am
October 26th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Hello Deuce,
I agree Darwinian desim is not a coherent concept, and in fact I find the theistic evolutionism as described by Ken Miller (admittedly I haven't read his book) or our very own Aagcobb, incoherent also, requiring silly contortions.
The reason I find any belief in God incompatible with Darwinism is that if there is a God, this god is necessarily the cause of our existence. Once you have that, the game changes, i.e., there can be no assumption or possibility of utterly random results in the world.
So then we have to define what we mean by Darwinism, and I think a strong case can be made to show that from day one, it has been more than just the mechanism of species change from an original life form, but has been considered as a strong theory that does away with the need of God, and furtherance of that hope through empirical study of nature has always been its goal. For that we must accept that matter is eternally self-existing (whether in some potential form or not) and that life is chemical.
Darwinism and atheism have beena lways connected, and theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller must adopt incoherent and shallow contortions to make peace with it. Most philosophies rely on logic and intuition foremost, but Darwinism is a philosophy that pins its hopes on scientific investigation, which is more or less unstated. This is the cause of the rabid emotion when scientific challenges are given, because it exposes the real nature of it as philosophically motivated.
They pretend the debate is over the rigors of science, when it is much deeper in the gut than that.
I'm not sure I follow the logic that if we are survival machines our every thought and action is prescribed and there cannot be choices? Why no randomness?
A closely related thought I have had, is that if life itself is just a matter of getting the right chemicals near each other, then what this means is that life isn't really anything at all.
Comment by onething — October 26, 2005 @ 12:36 pm
October 26th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Randomness could logically enter into it too, since it's allowed by materialism. The point is that no normative/conceptual properties (reasons, beliefs) exist, or they are epiphenominal (which I also doubt is coherent, and also invalidates pure materialism). At no point, under this view, are you ever really doing anything for a reason.
Comment by Deuce — October 26, 2005 @ 1:06 pm
October 26th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Wouldn't survival be the reason for everything?
Comment by onething — October 26, 2005 @ 1:48 pm
October 26th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
No, it would just be something your programming would tend to cause you to do. Sort of like the way a computer running a "Hello World" program will tend to print "Hello World" - it doesn't do it for a reason. That's just what its programming causes it to do. Anyhow, I think we may be starting to pull things off-topic here.
Comment by Deuce — October 26, 2005 @ 2:56 pm
October 27th, 2005 at 7:12 am
Onething, I think you are completely wrong. I don't know any reason to think that Darwin and Wallace intended to do away with the necessity for God, and their theory is vastly inadequate to do that job; its merely a description of how God's natural laws result in the diversity of life.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 27, 2005 @ 7:12 am
October 27th, 2005 at 7:42 am
Perhaps Aacobb should discuss this with Wm. Provine:
"I find that evolution is the most effective engine of atheism ever invented by humans, and I think the creationists are really afraid of something," Wm. Provine
Also if I read Aacobb correctly there is a natural law that we haven't found yet. Interesting.
Comment by Joe G — October 27, 2005 @ 7:42 am
October 27th, 2005 at 9:28 am
Dane Parker says
Surely, as a timeless adherent, you understand that a timeless God wills his intentions from one eternal state into many different points in our temporal universe? This of course is fully consistant with a view of creation ex nihilo where if God wills the existance of homo sapiens sapiens at, say, time t3 then God working from outside time needs no temporal or biological precursors from say t2 or t1 to work from. Your God of Creation, Aagcobb, appears to be front-loader, temporal God, not a timeless one.
No, thats not what I am saying. God isn't a front loader, working only at the beginning of time, and he doesn't will his intent into many different points in our temporal universe. God created the entire universe instantly, and his will manifests itself at every single point in our universe, not merely many. As I tried to explain to onething in another thread, God created the universe as a whole, not a series of independently specially created points in time; if points in time were not linked to each other by causation, consciousness as we know it couldn't exist, since time itself wouldn't exist. We know we perceive an arrow of time due to causation. God didn't create the universe one slice of spacetime at a time; its an organic whole from beginning to end.
Secondly, I would disagree with your view that Darwinism is valid view if God exists at all. I've written before (not here):
[I]f ID is "˜merely' an attempt to discover design in nature, while Neo-Darwinism is a theory in which random variation and natural selection "“ that is to say unintentional forces "“ then how can a theist fully reject ID? I'm not talking about the false dilemma of choosing either creation ex nihilo or evolution as a creative force. I'm talking about how do you separate Creation from God's intelligence? After all, if God's intelligence is involved at all, is it not intelligent design in some fashion? Of course it is.
IDism isn't merely the belief that God is responsible for the natural laws in the universe; many theistic evolutionists believe that. IDism is the belief that God's intervention in biology is empirically detectable because his natural laws, in and of themselves, are insufficient to explain the diversity of biological life on earth. Using my simplistic dice analogy further, Casinos don't have to load the dice because they make the rules of the game to ensure that they make a profit. IDists think God loads the dice, and they can detect it, though they haven't shown any ability to do so to date; I think God makes the rules and has no need to load the dice.
Your error is in viewing evolutionary theory as a metaphysical belief system like a religion. Its not, its only a scientific theory which provides the best description we are capable of for explaining natural phenomenon. It doesn't provide that mutations are random and nature has no purpose in a metaphysical sense; science is limited to what is empirically detectable. If your objection to evolutionary theory is that it makes a metaphysical statement that there is no God and life has no purpose, rest assured that there is no science which is capable of making such a determination. Atheists who make such an assertion are in error, wilfully blinding themselves to the obvious fact that something cannot exist for no reason. Paul told us long ago that those who deny God have no excuse, long before we even knew cells existed, never mind how complicated they are. So what does scientism add? Nothing; it merely encourages the belief that ordinary people can't decide about God for themselves, when Paul clearly teaches that they can, because they have to depend on experts to tell us what process brought cells about, and the process tells us whether God exists or not. Its rubbish.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 27, 2005 @ 9:28 am
October 27th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
I don't know who Aacobb is trying to convince, himself or us.
I say that because if he is trying to convince us he is failing miserably.
If science is limited to what is empirically detectable, then ID is science because both intelligence and design are empirically detectable. However the premise that all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry (via some blindwatchmaker-type process) to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms which just happened to have to ability to imperfectly reproduce, is not empirically detectable. Nor is it open for objective testing nor verification.
We can test ID. We can test the concept of IC. We can also test the concept of CSI. We do not need to test the concept of "God".
Comment by Joe G — October 27, 2005 @ 12:18 pm
October 27th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Aagcobb,
I don't really feel like defending the statement that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, because I think the evidence is ample, and much of it has been presented just today in the latest thread. I also know that it is true most students today are being taught that the universe and life arose randomly and is without purpose. This is a strong metaphysical position to impress on unformed minds.
There is this really odd thing about Jehovah - he gave us a lot of intelligence, but when we really want to use it we seem to run afoul. First, Adam and Eve were condemned because they wanted knowledge pretty badly, then we have the tower of Babel incident. Again, people were up to something big. Now, we have a situation in which 60-96% of scientists are
atheists. Apparently, they will go to hell, being without excuse. Since faith seems pretty shaky in many people, is it alright with you for kids to be taught that way in shcool?
Comment by onething — October 27, 2005 @ 1:00 pm
October 27th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
When Darwin writes that he had demolished the "old argument from design," he plainly means that he had demolished one of the traditional arguments for the existence of God. There is reason to believe that he thought his argument was sweeping and decisive. When he says he could "see" no design at all [And wouldn't believe it by any evidence or evidentiary standards!"”Which is what he said. It's not just that he doesn't see it or believe it"”He won't see it or believe it!], I think we are not far wrong in concluding that for Darwin that meant he could see no evidence of the existence of God.
Specifically, Darwin relates natural selection as a "law" and describes it as the "aggregate effect" of natural laws, and describe "all things" as operating according to "fixed laws." But where does Darwin ever relate those laws to the will or mind of God?
Also Darwin directly addresses commonly repeated arguments such as, "The whole universe reflects God's purpose and intent"¦ God already knows everything that is ever going to happen because he is omniscient, and everything that happens serves his purpose"¦ the necessity for God"¦ [and] God's natural laws result in the diversity of life." E.g., see his remarks concluding "Animals and Plants."
Darwin leaves little, if any, room for "God." But its interesting that its not by any careful or systmatic argumentation on his part. That could be because Darwin 's "scientifically indifferent" to the subject. Nyaah, I don't think so. That Darwin didn't seem to feel that it required a lot of thought and labor to demolish a widely believed traditional "proof" of God's existence, tells us more about what Darwin really thought than anything he actually wrote specifically or in toto.
Either Darwin is a man of such astounding hubris that he thinks he can, in comparatively few words, demolish one of the oldest and most robust arguments for the existence of God. (I say "robust," because the argument from design had attracted the critical attention of some of the most penetrating minds in the history of Western thought. And still managed to survive.) Or Darwin simply thinks so little of the argument from design that he doesn't need to expend much thought or labor in dismissing it.
Many of his contemporaries did criticize his work as basically little more than argument to atheism. Darwin did address some criticism of his work, but it would be interesting to see if he ever corrected that criticism.
(However, both Richard Roberts and John Collins have quite different understandings. Roberts thinks Darwin thinks that evolution is like the outworking of a "Great Mind." And Collins thinks that Darwin's very notions of "law" are religious.)
Interpreting Darwin, I suppose, is like interpreting Holy Writ. Maybe more like interpreting Holy Writ than we should be comfortable with. LOL
Comment by Rock — October 27, 2005 @ 3:08 pm
October 27th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
Ol darwin thought he'd killed the teleological 'bear' but it turned out to be a flesh wound, so watch ya back Charlie coz the bears a comin and he's a lil cranky.
Comment by willo — October 27, 2005 @ 4:41 pm
October 28th, 2005 at 6:33 am
Joe G says We can test the concept of IC. We can also test the concept of CSI.
Test them? IDists can't even tell us what those terms mean, or at least they do tell us, but the definitions keep changing, virtually with every telling.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 28, 2005 @ 6:33 am
October 28th, 2005 at 7:41 am
Joe G says We can test the concept of IC. We can also test the concept of CSI.
Aacobb:
Test them? IDists can't even tell us what those terms mean, or at least they do tell us, but the definitions keep changing, virtually with every telling.
Reality demonstrates that the criteria for IC and CSI are more specified and complete than anything NDE has to offer as far as inferring that blindwatchmaker-type processes were responsible. To date the only criteria for doing that is the refusal to admit that a designer could be responsible.
Also reality demonstrates the only people who do not understand IC and/ or CSI are the people who just refuse to do so.
Comment by Joe G — October 28, 2005 @ 7:41 am
October 28th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
Rock says Specifically, Darwin relates natural selection as a "law" and describes it as the "aggregate effect" of natural laws, and describe "all things" as operating according to "fixed laws." But where does Darwin ever relate those laws to the will or mind of God?
Rock, did Darwin actually write theological treatises? If he was writing as a scientists, not a theologian, why would he even try to relate those laws to the will or mind of God? it simply isn't a subject for scientific study.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 28, 2005 @ 4:11 pm
October 28th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Onething says Now, we have a situation in which 60-96% of scientists are
atheists. Apparently, they will go to hell, being without excuse. Since faith seems pretty shaky in many people, is it alright with you for kids to be taught that way in shcool?
I wouldn't blame science for people being lost; plenty of people without any education are lost as well.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 28, 2005 @ 4:18 pm
October 28th, 2005 at 4:21 pm
Deuce says Rather, "we" are just automatons, our every activity the result of functionalist Darwinian programming using our surroundings as input.
Deuce, can you cite any evolutionary biologists who actually say this, or is it just another strawman version of evolution?
Comment by Aagcobb — October 28, 2005 @ 4:21 pm
October 28th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
Aagcob.
I understand that if the stasis theory of time is correct and that God is timeless, that all of time exists as one whole to God, and that God sustains that whole throughout. I have no issue with that, nor did I state otherwise. What I did take issue with, and I do not see that you specifically answered it in detail, is that God does NOT work temporally as well. In fact, God does not (necessarily) work temporally because he exists outside time and does indeed will his intentions into different parts of the temporal continuum. I only say 'necessarily', because since God is timeless he does not need to work by time or through time because his relationship to time is non-linear — He is 'beyond' (not physically speaking of course) time and not subject to its passage. And therefore having God work through time as you indeed have him doing (that is, by creating via evolution), is superfluous and unnecessary if not absurd. If you are going to answer my criticisms, you'll have to justify why you have a timeless God working via time; a digression on God sustaining the universe as a whole is not sufficient.
Also, you fault me with bringing the metaphysics of purpose into evolution. Well sure, virtually every atheist I know personally could be off their base using Darwinism as well, as an excuse for their belief. However, call my issue with Darwinism merely semantic and perhaps it is, but in a 'process theory of time universe' any variation intended by God (and I did NOT say that I think anything to be 'loaded'. With the exception of Big Bang front-loading, nature left to its own devices is fine with me) those variation are still NOT random because they were pre-specified to occur at a given time. That is, intelligent design STILL permeates the universe even if God isn't actively guiding this particle to go here and that one to go there. Thus to wit, sure God isn't building creation throughout the creation even, however the predetermined order placed upon the universe at its becoming is the reason that nauter produces the results that it does.
Comment by Dane Parker — October 28, 2005 @ 7:42 pm
October 28th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
Dane Parker says And therefore having God work through time as you indeed have him doing (that is, by creating via evolution), is superfluous and unnecessary if not absurd. If you are going to answer my criticisms, you'll have to justify why you have a timeless God working via time; a digression on God sustaining the universe as a whole is not sufficient.
Its not absurd first, because we must take note of the fact that time exists in this universe, and God works through time. God's relationship with humans, for example, has been developing at the least for thousands of years; even if you are a YEC you have to admit that God's plan is taking an immense amount of time by human standards to unfold. Its absurd to take the position that God doesn't work through time. For example, we know that light from distant stars has been traveling to get here for thousands, if not millions of years; by your logic, God should have simply created points of light in the sky for us to see, rather than using immense amounts of time to develop starlight in our night sky.
Second, as I mentioned before human consciousness couldn't exist without the arrow of time created by causation. If each moment in time was specially created, unrelated to what occurred in previous moments or what will occur in subsequent moments, we couldn't develop memories or continue a train of thought. Each moment has to be related by causation to each prior and subsequent moment.
Third, for God this time doesn't exist. From his point of view it took no time to develop life through evolution; the entire universe simply was, as soon as he conceived it. You keep trying to look at the issue from a human perspective; from God's pov, developing man through four billion years of evolution and 13 billion years since the Big Bang was an instantaneous act of creation.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 28, 2005 @ 9:52 pm
October 29th, 2005 at 12:04 am
I'm not quite sure what your question here is supposed to be, and why you think this is a strawman if biologists don't say it themselves. I'm simply pointing out what logically follows, on analysis, from the idea that our existence is fully accounted for by purely material and Darwinian causes (that's what I meant by Darwinism "in its strongest form"). It's not relevant whether most biologists accept it, and nowhere did I say that they did (most probably don't spend much time on the implications for philosophy of mind, others might generally be Darwinist, but not absolutists about it). It's as if I were to point out that pyramid schemes always screw the people at the bottom of the pyramid, and you were to accuse me of constructing a "strawman" because most people who participate in pyramid schemes don't say that. (and no, before you even say it, I'm not comparing evolution to a pyramid scheme, or implying dishonesty on anyone's part).
However, the general position I described is called functionalism, and among materalist philosophers and biologists who have spent some time thinking about it, it is the standard view (as you would expect, since it logically follows from materialism). Just listen to Dawkins, Pinker, EO Wilson, the Churchlands, Susan Blackmoore, etc, talk about the "self"'s nonexistence.
Nevertheless, since you asked for an example, go here to see some of Dawkins' and Pinker's ideas about the existence of the "self". If you look up some of those other names I gave you, you should be able to find more of the same.
Comment by Deuce — October 29, 2005 @ 12:04 am
October 29th, 2005 at 2:20 am
Aagcobb,
In response to your last entry: Thank you for further clarification. Indeed an arrow of time does exist in this universe and evolution seems to have some convincing documentation in the fossil record. However to interpret this as how God acts (not behaviorally, but upon the universe) timelessly is ad hoc and begs the question of whether we should expect God, if he his timeless, to act by such a means. I would, and have, argued that it is not. You interpret my means of how I think a timeless God would act to be consistent with young-earth creationist logic. That's interesting, but incorrect of course. I have merely argued that God, to will the becoming of a thing which he desires, requires no temporal or objective precursors. Your answer to this has been to point to the arrow of time that permits counsciousness. However, I'm afraid I do not see how it follows that because an arrow of time exists that a timeless God works temporally, especially since the arrow of time is just another product of God's will which itself has no temporal or objective precursors.
You also say that God's relationship with humans has been developing over the past several thousand years. But this is incorrect. If God is timeless his relationship with us is not developing because his existance encompasses the entirety of time and therefore there is nothing for God to develop. Also, you accuse me of anthropomorphizing the concept of (a timeless) God's reaction with our universe. But that is not the case at all. The fact is, from a timeless God's perspective, he doesn't need to work temporally to create anything (which, by the way, has been my point. Counsciousness may be dependant on an arrow of time, but Creation does not). As a matter of fact, he doesn't even need the Big Bang to bring forth his universe, as timeless adherent Paul Helm admits. So it seems to me, that what I've argued all along still holds. At the least, Creation's record of evolution is just not logically consistent with what one would expect of a timeless God.
Comment by Dane Parker — October 29, 2005 @ 2:20 am
October 29th, 2005 at 8:39 am
Dane saysThe fact is, from a timeless God's perspective, he doesn't need to work temporally to create anything (which, by the way, has been my point. Counsciousness may be dependant on an arrow of time, but Creation does not). As a matter of fact, he doesn't even need the Big Bang to bring forth his universe, as timeless adherent Paul Helm admits. So it seems to me, that what I've argued all along still holds. At the least, Creation's record of evolution is just not logically consistent with what one would expect of a timeless God.
You may think its not consistent with a timeless God, but as I pointed out and which you didn't address is that it is consistent with our observations. As in my example, we know that the starlight we see has traveled here immenses distances for thousands, if not millions of years. Since we know this, your position that its not consistent with a timeless God would mean that God is not timeless. Which would mean God is not creator of the universe at all, but a mere creature of the universe, and therefore not eternal; he may just be a more evolved lifeform. You can't put these constraints on how God can act without it having logical consequences; even if God himself is timeless, it appears that the universe needs an arrow of time for God's plan to unfold, therefore there isn't a logical reason why a timeless God couldn't incorporate time into his plan.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 29, 2005 @ 8:39 am
October 29th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
"Rock, did Darwin actually write theological treatises?"
You are a piece of work, Aagcobb! (No "design inference" intended by that remark. LOL) Did you ever hear a question you couldn't beg?
Some people think that all Darwin wrote was "theological treatises." Just like Dembski's "The Design Inference," say, they only appear to be about science, but what they are really about is theology.
In fact, Darwin addressed theological matters directly in every one of his works on evolutionary theory. I don't think there was any compelling reason for him to do so. He could have stated his theory and never addressed such issues directly. But he did choose to do so.
Also many people believe that Darwin's theological beliefs enter substantively into his theory. E.g., I think Michael Denton's insight is correct, that Darwin refused to admit the real possibility of saltatory modes of evolutionary change because Darwin identified saltations with miracles. (I'm not sure its an "insight" as such, because I think Darwin actually said as much. This is another instance where Darwin refused the advice of his closest associates.)
I think the same thing is true when Darwin argued (seemingly, or so he said, from ignorance) that variation is generated at random ("chance"). His reasons are not "ignorance," as he makes plain in scattered comments throughout all his works. Again theological thinking enters Darwin's explication of theory"”By "chance" he means only to exclude divine intervention, guidance, or providence, etc. A positive statement of an evolutionary theory does not require or reject either chance or saltations. Darwin's evolutionary theory does. Because it isn't just a scientific theory"”it is a theological argument!
Alternatively, I could ignore the facts and believe that Darwin is the only person who ever lived (besides Aagcobb) whose mental categories are so tidy, either "science" or "theology,: and never the twain shall meet. Darwin may not have been the genius he is sometimes portrayed as, but he certainly was an intelligent person. And most intelligent people recognize that things are not so tidy. I personally believe such tidy categories are the hallmark of a small closed mind.
Comment by Rock — October 29, 2005 @ 1:20 pm
October 29th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Is it just me or does anyone else see that Aacobb is trying to turn this into a "My 'God' can beat up your 'God'", spiel?
Also there are YEC cosmolgies that explain starlight and time:
How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
Comment by Joe G — October 29, 2005 @ 1:58 pm