Posted on 01/16/2011 4:09:10 PM PST by balch3
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- A Southern Baptist seminary president and evolution opponent has turned sights on "theistic evolution," the idea that evolutionary forces are somehow guided by God. Albert Mohler
Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote an article in the Winter 2011 issue of the seminary magazine labeling attempts by Christians to accommodate Darwinism "a biblical and theological disaster."
Mohler said being able to find middle ground between a young-earth creationism that believes God created the world in six 24-hour days and naturalism that regards evolution the product of random chance "would resolve a great cultural and intellectual conflict."
The problem, however, is that it is not evolutionary theory that gives way, but rather the Bible and Christian theology.
Mohler said acceptance of evolutionary theory requires reading the first two chapters of Genesis as a literary rendering and not historical fact, but it doesn't end there. It also requires rethinking the claim that sin and death entered the human race through the Fall of Adam. That in turn, Mohler contended, raises questions about New Testament passages like First Corinthians 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."
"The New Testament clearly establishes the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the foundation of the Bible's account of creation," Mohler wrote. "If there was no historical Adam and no historical Fall, the Gospel is no longer understood in biblical terms."
Mohler said that after trying to reconcile their reading of Genesis with science, proponents of theistic evolution are now publicly rejecting biblical inerrancy, the doctrine that the Bible is totally free from error.
"We now face the undeniable truth that the most basic and fundamental questions of biblical authority and Gospel integrity are at stake," Mohler concluded. "Are you ready for this debate?"
In a separate article in the same issue, Gregory Wills, professor of church history at Southern Seminary, said attempts to affirm both creation and evolution in the 19th and 20th century produced Christian liberalism, which attracted large numbers of Americans, including the clerical and academic leadership of most denominations.
After establishing the concept that Genesis is true from a religious but not a historical standpoint, Wills said, liberalism went on to apply naturalistic criteria to accounts of miracles and prophecy as well. The result, he says, was a Bible "with little functional authority."
"Liberalism in America began with the rejection of the Bible's creation account," Wills wrote. "It culminated with a broad rejection of the beliefs of historic Christianity. Yet many Christians today wish to repeat the experiment. We should not expect different results."
Mohler, who in the last year became involved in public debate about evolution with the BioLogos Foundation, a conservative evangelical group that promotes integrating faith and science, has long maintained the most natural reading of the Bible is that God created the world in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago.
Writing in Time magazine in 2005, Mohler rejected the idea of human "descent."
"Evangelicals must absolutely affirm the special creation of humans in God's image, with no physical evolution from any nonhuman species," he wrote. "Just as important, the Bible clearly teaches that God is involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation and the universe. That rules out the image of a kind of divine watchmaker."
I think it takes much greater marshaling of one's intellectual ability to convince oneself that there are talking donkeys and snakes, imaginary friends in the sky, that dead people get up and walk away, or that paralysis is caused by demons.
By now we have a litany of reasons to doubt, or rather reasons justifying unbelief. So we know what such folks don't believe. But can any of these folks tell us what they do believe?
Nothing. I know here and now. Tomorrow is a maybe. Since you asked.
But dear kosta, that is a pure strawman argument, a change of subject, a feat of legedemain. You begin by nattering about talking donkeys and snakes in order NOT to directly answer the question I posed. (Which had nothing to do with talking donkeys and/or snakes.)
And then, on this cheap basis, you extend your "finding" of absurdity to persons whom you believe may hold this view as described by you (i.e., relentless, mindless attachment to talking donkeys and/or snakes). In other words, first you define what is "wrong" with these people (they talk to donkeys and snakes), then you impute to them "guilt" for the "crime" that you've taken it upon yourself to define.
So now we can formally recognize that you are not averse to the use of the ad hominum attack, on top of the strawman argument.
Weird thing is, it seems to me that at last you have confessed to the nihilism that you elsewhere repeatedly have denied. Asked, "What do you believe? you wrote:
Nothing. I know here and now. Tomorrow is a maybe.Nothing. "Nihil."
The sheer wrongness of this presupposition of "nothing" is appalling to me. It flies in the face of reason and observation.
But that to me is not the worst part. For since ancient times, human genius has understood the critical connection between ontology (being) and epistemology (knowing). If there is "nothing," then certainly there is no "being." And if that's the case, then there's nothing to be known.
Takes care of that problem, right there! LOLOL!
But only for a nihilist....
The rest of us are still here, still very much alive, still trying to grapple with the real problems of the truthful organization of our lives and families and communities.
Nihilist principles — might that be an oxymoron? — would seem to shed no light on such problems. But that's no surprise really. For if nothing exists, what could be having problems?
Nihilism arises from a root of bitterness. And the last thing a bitter soul wants to be told is what their familiar bitterness is doing to the life God gave to them.
Along with your question, betty, “What do you believe?” comes an additional question, hand-in-glove, “What do you hope for?” Those are the two questions, kosta. You have said, “Nothing.” to the belief question. What is your “hope” response?
As you cast forward, what do you vision for yourself for the here and now? What do you vision for yourself(hope for) in the beyond?
Funny that's how I feel about most of your posts.
You begin by nattering about talking donkeys and snakes in order NOT to directly answer the question I posed. (Which had nothing to do with talking donkeys and/or snakes.)
This is what I am talking about. If you go back you will see that I used precisely the same words you used to make sure I was answering your question..."marshaling intellectual ability..."etc. so there would be no doubt I was answering it.
You mention your question when, in fact, there was no question at all! There was only your "aggravated" comment, to wit:
"What is particularly aggravating is the marshaling of considerable intellectual ability and resources to "proving" unbelief. Obviously, such a person is not trying to overcome his unbelief."
Where is the question? Sometimes I don't really know what to think except that perhaps you are so "aggravated" by me that you can't even tell when you are asking a question and when making an "aggravated" comment. :)
And then, on this cheap [sic] basis, you extend your "finding" of absurdity to persons whom you believe may hold this view as described by you
Cheap? What was "cheap" about my statement:
"I think it takes much greater marshaling of one's intellectual ability to convince oneself that there are talking donkeys and snakes, imaginary friends in the sky, that dead people get up and walk away, or that paralysis is caused by demons."
In other words, first you define what is "wrong" with these people (they talk to donkeys and snakes), then you impute to them "guilt" for the "crime" that you've taken it upon yourself to define.
Not "wrong," unbelievable! I simply stated that it takes a lot more intellectual effort to believe in things mentioned above then to disbelieve them. I can't help you if my opinions are so "aggravating" to you. Maybe deep down inside you know I am right... :)
then you impute to them "guilt" for the "crime" [sic] that you've taken it upon yourself to define.
Where do I impute "guilt" for any "crimes?" You are beginning to worry me, bb. You appear somewhat incoherent.
So now we can formally recognize that you are not averse to the use of the ad hominum attack, on top of the strawman argument.
There is no ad hominem in anything I wrote.
Weird thing is, it seems to me that at last you have confessed to the nihilism that you elsewhere repeatedly have denied. Asked, "What do you believe? you wrote: Nothing. I know here and now. Tomorrow is a maybe.
I do know only here and now. Yesterday is gone and tomorrow is a maybe. That's not nihilism but realism. Maybe you have a crystal ball but I don't. I take my life as it comes, and never take anything for granted.
Nothing. "Nihil." The sheer wrongness of this presupposition of "nothing" is appalling to me. It flies in the face of reason and observation.
I am not surprised. But I must disagree that it flies in the face of reason and observation. In fact, reason and observation should tell you that you have no guarantee for tomorrow— unless you have a crystal ball— which I don't, and that therefore tomorrow is a maybe, period.
We can reasonably hope, but not know what tomorrow will bring. Likewise, reason and observation should help you realize that the here and now are is all we actually have.
But that to me is not the worst part.
There is more? :)
For since ancient times, human genius has understood the critical connection between ontology (being) and epistemology (knowing). If there is "nothing," then certainly there is no "being." And if that's the case, then there's nothing to be known.
Wow. I never said there is [sic] "nothing." You ask "what do you believe" and I said "nothing" (not in nothing). You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Why do you that, betty boop?
The rest of us are still here, still very much alive, still trying to grapple with the real problems of the truthful organization of our lives and families and communities.
How does this have anything to do with what we were discussing? I think you switched channels...or maybe it's a commercial. :)
What are you implying? That I am not alive, that I don't grapple with the "real problems", family, etc? That's pathetic, betty boop. How low will you reach? And for no other reason than the fact that I don't buy into your "real problem" of imaginary things? That's way over the top.
I think I have answered the hope part (reasonable expectation that tomorrow will be another day, but no guarantee) in the reply to bb.
I have no vision for here and now. Here and now is here and now, padre. As for the "beyond" I honestly don't know. I think we are recycled like the leaves on a tree.
Don't think that compares favorably with the first cause argument. But show your work so we can see. :)
But what is observed is not necessarily how things really are.
There is still the Myth of the Given, but sense observation is the firmest knowledge we have. What would you propose we replace that with is a fair question.
However, just because it produces music doesn't really explain or establish what music truly is.
Relevant to a philosopher, not so much to a music lover. It has value depending on its use.
So, I don't really see anything man knows except as a working models, which, as Box's wise statement says "are all wrong, except some are useful."
Because models are models - never the thing itself. Still we know more about reality with them than without.
In a very similar way, concepts are not the thing itself, words are all metaphors, models, comparisons with something else - not the same as the experience of the thing itself.
Direct experience, without concepts or models, is another way of knowing. Mystic much, Kosta? :)
I think we're in agreement mostly here. I find it a bit of a role reversal for me advocating the virtues of observational facts and logic and you emphasizing their limitations is knowing reality.
But it's cool.
Good post, thanks for making it.
Models have limits, man
You sound like a whole line of our guys, D-f, from the Cappadocians through +Symeon the New Theologian to +Gregory Palamas. Very good.
Not a talking snake or donkey in the bunch, Kosta mou.
LOL!
Sure. You said (with my emphasis): It's an argument, and a good one, for why anything exists - using observation and logic.
And I agreed because the volcano and sun gods are no different than the first cause god. They are all classical god-of-the-gaps examples. Observation reveals a mystery, "fancy" provides a suitable "god" to "explain" it (i.e. fill the "gap"). It's the easiest way to get past things we don't understand and make "sense" of them.
but sense observation is the firmest knowledge we have
Yes, if it is not mixed with expectations, or subject to explanations, but merely provides the most efficient solutions. But there are also other obstacles. Human memory and motivation distort what we observe, making them unreliable and leading to superstitious beliefs.
Take, for example, the "falling" and "dancing" sun in Fatima in 1917, or the 1972 David Tereshchuk's soldier's red beret. What we see or remember is heavily influenced by our emotions, expectations and desires.
[However, just because it produces music doesn't really explain or establish what music truly is.] Relevant to a philosopher, not so much to a music lover. It has value depending on its use.
My point was that music boxes don't widen our knowledge of music, or explain what it is. Music boxes don't explain the nature of music; they produce mood-altering vibrations.
[So, I don't really see anything man knows except as a working models, which, as Box's wise statement says "are all wrong, except some are useful."]Because models are models - never the thing itself. Still we know more about reality with them than without.
Correct. Models are not the thing itself and therefore cannot tell us what the thing truly is. Therefore they do not increase our knowledge or understanding of the world as it really is.
In a very similar way, concepts are not the thing itself, words are all metaphors, models, comparisons with something else - not the same as the experience of the thing itself.
Some concepts describe real things, and in that sense they are descriptions of the the thing and not the thing itself, the way a photograph is a picture of a thing (and image of it, i.e. icon, or eikona in Greek) and not the object it represent.
When we get into experience, rules change because there is no "thing" to observe. Sure, we all experience some things we use a common name for, but we really can't establish how these experiences are experienced in others.
Based on the fact that we can't agree on them (for instance there is no universal agreement on what love is), we must conclude that different people have different experiences but call them by the same name. That doesn't mean these differences, and our ultimate disposition towards them, are not related to, or influenced by our physical and chemical makeup.
There is a chemical test for taste, using one single substances placed on the tongue (placed on different parts of the tongue and recording the response). Some don't taste it at all, others taste it as salty, others yet as sweet, sour, bitter, etc. Now, depending on how you taste that substance, your tendency to use it again is determined by the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the taste is evokes base don the fact that positive experience tends to be repeated and negative doesn't.
I know this for a fact when it comes to dark chocolate, which I absolute detest. But I have yet to meet a woman who is not absolutely addicted to it! So, guess who is more likely to buy the 87% dark Godiva? Not me, unless I have ulterior motives. :)
Direct experience, without concepts or models, is another way of knowing. Mystic much, Kosta? :)
No. Direct experience has to do with our biology, and our disposition towards it is a conditioned (learned) response.
Models have limits, man.
The usefulness of man's models are limited by man's finite makeup. Otherwise it serves no human purpose.
And not much of a single fact either, Kolo mou.
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics, for application, requires the condition that the there exist a containment of energy within the system. The Earth, however, receives trillions of megajoules of energy from the Sun and other sources, and hence, the application of the Second Law requires careful consideration of this fact. Things can go from disorder to order, within a system (the Earth) when energy is input into the system.”
“...Things can go from disorder to order, within a system (the Earth) when energy is input into the system.”
That is the ‘tornado in a junkyard’ theory. Input of energy is not sufficient to create order out of chaos.
By that logic, then I should be able to explode a thermonuclear weapon over Detroit, and create San Francisco from the fireball.
Spontaneous or otherwise, energy cannot organize and “freeze” into useful objects or organisms without some LAW directing that formation. However, what force creates those guiding LAWS? And from whence came the primal energy? Energy requires a CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE to DIRECT its PROPER application, so to transform the energy into FORMED MATTER. EVERY ACTION MUST have a FIRST CAUSE.
Hence, metmom’s reply:
“But not spontaneously. Work must be done for that to be accomplished. What is the mechanism that initiated and maintains the work?”
PRECISLY!
Is it truly possible for one who expresses zero faith —and opposition — in Almighty God, the Resurrection, and biblical miracles to be an Orthodox in good standing, Kolo?
I find this to be something I must consider.
There are such things as reversible and irreversible processes, among others, where the rates of energy transfer and conversion determine what is and isn't possible.
It isn't a binary "either-this-or-that" sort of a scenario that is at play in the real world that allows you to pull out this example above.
Spontaneous or otherwise, energy cannot organize and “freeze” into useful objects or organisms without some LAW directing that formation. However, what force creates those guiding LAWS? And from whence came the primal energy? Energy requires a CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE to DIRECT its PROPER application, so to transform the energy into FORMED MATTER. EVERY ACTION MUST have a FIRST CAUSE.
Are you sure all this was not done by a committee of celestial parliamentarians?
When you say "lawgiver" and "primal source", it's all fine and dandy until an elaborate tale is woven to associate that with the god of the Old Testament. The intermediary processes need further elaboration than mere mythology.
What you've basically done is attempt to introduce the classic god-of-the-gaps, and to such arguments, this lengthy thread has the answers, a few of which I will reproduce here: "... the point of the discussion that introducing mysticism into areas of scence that are yet to be fully explained as a stop-gap "solution" is not an acceptable mode of scientific progress. The common trick that's played by these proponents of the 'theology of the fringes', involving vagueness of terminology and inappropriate usage of concepts, is as follows: 1. First, they make the presumption or the implication that science knows or can explain everything. 2. Next, they pick and choose those areas that are still insufficiently explored, and demand an explanation for them. This was what was being done when the earlier poster attempted to bring in not just a deity, but a deity of his / her choice, to pose as if that deity is the solution to the incomplete understanding of the position-momentum uncertainty - a classic case of introducing a god-of-the-gaps. To such proponents, the tactic to be employed to counter their "reasoning" is simple. Make them climb down from the vanguards of scientific knowledge, and instead force them to go into the doctrinal and scriptural basics of their faith, straight to the definitional roots of their deity(s). To these proponents, I ask that they answer questions such as these: Firstly, if their adopted deity(s) is (are) beyond the realms of time and space, then it implies that time has no influence over it (them) - in essence, it is (they are) timeless and has / have existed forever. Since the beginning of anything requires a transformational change from the moment of non-existence to the moment of existence, so too must the beginning of even the process that leads to creation, undergo a period of change. The present Universe (and they assume is the only universe) had a finite 'beginning', they believe. This implies that this Universe also was once under the realm of non-existence. Now for the deity to have begun the process of creation, it must have undergone a transformation, or change, from within the realms of its timeless existence, to the period of change that occurred when it decided to create. Since change implies time, how then is this deity existing in a timeless realm? Secondly, and this is more specific to the religions under consideration, if you believe in the deity of the Old Testament, and also believe the deity to be the source of all morality, then what happened during the moment when this deity ordered for the son of David to suffer a week-long illness and then perish, for no fault of its? Additionally, how was it moral for the same deity to order for the slaughter of the Amalekite children and infants as detailed in 1 Samuel 15:3? These are merely examples of forcing such introducers of the gods-of-the-gaps to reconcile the contradictions of their own adopted religions. To them, the choices available are as follows: 1. Reconcile with the contradictions by means of logical arguments. 2. Adopt the an agnostic, or at best, a deistic concept for the god they introduced to fill in the apparent gap." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2657994/posts?page=376#376 Ever notice how the proponents of these gods-of-the-gaps make it all a matter of binary choice, even when such discretised “us vs. thems” don’t exist in the real world? I mean, “believe or burn for eternity” would be a great reason to adopt a particular brand of superstition now, wouldn’t it? When other lures fail, that’s the threat they resort to, and Pascal’s “wager” is pulled out of the magic hat like it was earlier on in this thread. Now back to the problem of the non-existence of strict bipolar choices - what’s a stillborn child, the mentally challenged, and other human beings without the capacity to make free choices to do? Creation was finite, but punishment has to be eternal. How inspiring! Amazing to see how no one was able to pull themselves out of the paradox that prevents their deities from being incapable of separating themselves from the shackles of time. As simple a concept as change necessitating time is now impossible for them to grasp. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2657994/posts?page=857#857 Address the arguments above - especially the paradox introduced by assuming a "first cause" and we'll have something to discuss. Practically everything else has been covered in the comments earlier.
I am not a practicing Orthodox Christian, xzins. It would be highly hypocritical of my to attend Divine Liturgy and question the essential dogma of Christianity. However, regardless if you and the Church consider me "lost," I cannot be unbaptized. The seal of my infant chrismation remains, fwiw.
Not at all, Padre. That is not what I was commenting on but rather on the quoted line from D-f's post.
And I agreed because the volcano and sun gods are no different than the first cause god.
If you wish to use the term "sun god" for the first cause in the first cause argument, there is no difference, other than the name. But the first cause argument does not depend on what you call god - you don't even have to call the first cause god at all.
If you're not using the first cause argument, then you have show your argument for volcanoes and sun gods. If your argument is:
Observation reveals a mystery, "fancy" provides a suitable "god" to "explain" it .
Then your argument is very different than the first cause argument. Logic, not fancy, is the method used in the first cause argument.
If you're argument relies on fancy as a method, then it is not at all comparable to the first cause argument.
thanks for your reply.
It’s not that I consider you lost, kosta.
You are lost.
It is a relief to hear that, Kolo. I thought I was hearing that a radical liberalism had seized Orthodoxy, and I have had such hopes for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.