Re: [asa] Was Adam a real person?

From: Bethany Sollereder <bsollereder@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Apr 11 2008 - 23:20:08 EDT

David,

You admit your own anachronism by saying "*so yeah, that's a little
anachronistic too". *Doesn't that reinforce Denis' point about you, saying
both are anachronistic and you are just saying that his is "worse" than
yours?

What are the point of the questions? I don't understand how they add to the
conversation... I mean the second one especially seems to be ridiculous. I
don't think anyone thinks the Enuma Elish is a naturalistic explanation of
the world. Can we move on?

Bethany Sollereder

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 7:45 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Denis -- can you address the merits or are you just going to keep on name
> calling? It's tiresome and it should be beneath you.
>
> Speaking of selective "prooftexting," concerning anachronisms, this is
> what I actually said: *Obviously, they wouldn't have used this term, so
> yeah, that's a little anachronistic too. But I don't think its
> anachronistic as a category in the way "science of the day" is anachronistic
> as a category.
>
> *This is not "your anachronism is worst [sic] than my anachronism." I am
> using a term they would not have used to describe what they were doing. You
> are using a category of activity in which they were simply not engaged.*
> *
> Now, can you answer these questions, or are you going to keep evading them
> with ad hominems:
>
> -- do you agree that "science" as we define it today is limited to natural
> explanations? Or do you contend that "science" as we define it today can
> admit the immediate presence and activity of gods?
>
> -- do you agree that ANE cosmology is contingent on the immediate presence
> and activity of gods? Or do you contend that the Enuma Elish is a purely
> naturalistic explanation of how the universe came to be?
>
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Denis O. Lamoureux <dlamoure@ualberta.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > Yep.
> > Like a true lawyer, David has selectively proof texted my
> > message, completely failing to deal with his insulting
> > nonsensical argument:
> >
> > (1) So you admit your anachronism, but then argue
> > that my anachronism is worst than yours.
> >
> > Goodness gracious! I suppose I should walk over
> > to the law school to learn about this special way
> > of arguing.
> >
> > Of course, David's only response is to whine about ad hom
> > arguments and play his usual word games.
> >
> > And I haven't confused you with Phil Johnson. There you go
> > again jumping to an injudicious conclusion. You're half a notch
> > below Phil. He never padded his e-mails with all sorts of books
> > he didn't understand (don't pedantic undergrads do that in their
> > papers)?
> >
> > As Howard Van Till said to Phil a number of years ago: sophomoric
> > arrogance.
> >
> > Counselor, don't give up your day job.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Denis
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> > *To:* Denis O. Lamoureux <dlamoure@ualberta.ca>
> > *Cc:* Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> ; Dehler, Bernie<bernie.dehler@intel.com>;
> > asa@lists.calvin.edu
> > *Sent:* Friday, April 11, 2008 7:23 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [asa] Was Adam a real person?
> >
> > Denis said: You have misread and misrepresented Walton's book.
> > But I guess misspeaking is standard and perfectly
> > acceptable for lawyers . .
> >
> > I respond: Really, Denis, is this kind of garbage ad hominem argument
> > necessary? I don't think I've "misread" Walton's book at all, though that
> > certainly is possible. The claim that I've "misrepresented" it, however, is
> > just offensive, because that implies malicious intent. I've been around
> > here for a while, and if you understood that you'd know that I'm probably
> > more on your "side" than not. But don't try to bully me and don't confuse
> > me with Phil Johnson.
> >
> > I've also corresponded several times with Walton about his book in the
> > past -- not in connection with this conversation -- and he made clear to me
> > that we can't consider the ANE people to have been doing "literal" cosmology
> > in the way that we would use the term "literal" because they were more
> > interested in "functions" than "causes." In fact, this distinction between
> > "functions" and "causes" is one of his main points about the ANE mindset,
> > and if you've read his IVP commentary on Genesis you'll see that this is why
> > he considers the "days" of Genesis 1 not to be "literal" days -- i.e., God's
> > statements about the sun and moon don't cause the sun and moon to come into
> > existence, they assign functions to the sun and moon of marking seasons and
> > days and years. How is Walton your "colleague," BTW? Are you at Wheaton
> > now?
> >
> > So, if Walton is using the shorthand "Old World Science," fine -- but I
> > think he'd also agree that this does NOT imply "science" in the sense we use
> > that term today, meaning explanations of natural causes.
> >
> > Anyway, let me ask you this:
> >
> > -- do you agree that "science" as we define it today is limited to
> > natural explanations? Or do you contend that "science" as we define it
> > today can admit the immediate presence and activity of gods?
> >
> > -- do you agree that ANE cosmology is contingent on the immediate
> > presence and activity of gods? Or do you contend that the Enuma Elish is a
> > purely naturalistic explanation of how the universe came to be?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Denis O. Lamoureux <
> > dlamoure@ualberta.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello David,
> > > I'm the "Someone said" individual. Two points:
> > >
> > > (1) So you admit your anachronism, but then argue
> > > that my anachronism is worst than yours.
> > >
> > > Goodness gracious! I suppose I should walk over
> > > to the law school to learn about this special way
> > > of arguing.
> > >
> > > (2) Just contacted my colleague John Walton whose
> > > book you've appealed to in your posts. Regarding
> > > the notion of ancient science or science of the day,
> > > he writes:
> > > I often use "Old World Science" as a way
> > > of categorizing Israel's cosmic geography if
> > > that clarifies anything.
> > > You have misread and misrepresented Walton's book.
> > > But I guess misspeaking is standard and perfectly
> > > acceptable for lawyers . . .
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD
> > > Assistant Professor of Science & Religion
> > > St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta
> > > Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6G 2J5
> > > Tel: 780 492 7681 ext.246
> > > Fax: 780 492 8145
> > > E-mail: dlamoure@ualberta.ca
> > > Website: www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure<http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Edlamoure>
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> > > *To:* Denis O. Lamoureux <dlamoure@ualberta.ca>
> > > *Cc:* Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> ; Dehler, Bernie<bernie.dehler@intel.com>;
> > > asa@lists.calvin.edu
> > > *Sent:* Friday, April 11, 2008 7:36 AM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [asa] Was Adam a real person?
> > >
> > > Someone said: Now this is delicious. I'm accused of being
> > > "anachronistic," and two sentences later David refers to "cosmogenic
> > > myths." Does anyone think that J, P or R were constructing "cosmogenic
> > > myths"? [I'm saying "someone said" b/c the string got long and I can't
> > > figure out who's saying what!]
> > >
> > > I respond: Yes, I do think the author[s] of Gen. 1-4 was[were]
> > > constructing / assembling / editing / redacting cosmogenic myths, just like
> > > I think the authors and editors of the Enuma Elish were constructing /
> > > assembling / editing / redacting cosmogenic myths. Obviously, they wouldn't
> > > have used this term, so yeah, that's a little anachronistic too. But I
> > > don't think its anachronistic as a category in the way "science of the day"
> > > is anachronistic as a category. "Science" by definition means natural
> > > explanations for natural phenomena, doesn't it? If one thing is certain,
> > > it's that "methodological naturalism" would have been utterly,
> > > incomprehensibly foreign to the ANE peoples.
> > >
> > > An acquaintance of mine who is an ANE scholar recommended to me
> > > Thorkild Jacobsen's "The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian
> > > Religion." A really captivating book. Reading the actual texts and poems
> > > of the culture, and understanding the rituals associated with those texts,
> > > its clear that they had no notion of transcendence of the gods. The
> > > numinous was ever present for them. The earth and sky really were, in some
> > > sense, Tiamat's body, the gods were really present in the people enacting
> > > their parts in fertility rituals -- it reminds me a bit of the Roman notion
> > > of the real presence of Christ in the host. Their marriage and love poems
> > > are poignant too.
> > >
> > > If you want to call the numinous presence of Tiamat in the earth and
> > > firmament "the science of the day," it seems to me you have to qualify the
> > > word "science" so much that what it really means is "cosmogenic myths."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David W. Opderbeck
> > Associate Professor of Law
> > Seton Hall University Law School
> > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 11 23:21:51 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 11 2008 - 23:21:51 EDT