Re: [asa] Appeasing TE?

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue Dec 23 2008 - 09:18:32 EST

> But I am troubled by the issues within Christianity the theory
> doesn't seem to adequately address. I am personally
> not intellectually satisfied.

I am sorry you can't get no satisfaction but I contend that is a personal problem. You are projecting your criteria of satisfaction on God's plan for criteria and if one of them has to give I suggest it shouldn't have to be him. This is the same mistake that Ken Ham and YEC's make by insisting that they will only worship a God that creates according to their criteria.

One of the hardest things to let go of in becoming a TE is our feeling of understanding and knowledge and control from our integrated science/theology worldview even if it is self-deceiving. The YEC's are a prefect example. ID is a another slightly less extreme and obvious example.

This is human nature and has historically been the case in Christianity. The disciples wanted to have this too but Jesus denied them from having with his constant out of left field comments about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, raising the temple up in 3 days, being born again and letting the dead bury their dead. Our church fathers were denied it as well by Copernicus and now more lately by Darwin. And we never seem to learn our lesson.

I think the point is that we just can't have all the answers. I don't think there is a systmatic theology that totally and completely captures God and boils Him down to something we can understand and predict. I think He is bigger than that and denies us that like he has done all those before us. The sooner we learn this the better.

I agree that what should be motivating us is how to reach the people in Dick's meeting. But there is no silver bullet. There are no 4 TE Spiritual Laws that will instantly reach them. It requires us living the life in concert with the Holy Spirit's leading and being available and sensitive to try to reach each one where they are at at the time they are brought to us.

I think the offensive weapon of the ID movement is counterproductive in this sense and therefore needs to be backed away from. Yes there are powerful evidences of design out of the ID argument but it loses its value when we try to use it as a club to bludgeon unbelievers to faith. I suggest that if you modify your criteria on how God should reveal himself in nature you may finally get some satisfaction, albeit not what you originally expected.

Thanks

John

--- On Mon, 12/22/08, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Appeasing TE?
> To: john_walley@yahoo.com
> Cc: "Nucacids" <nucacids@wowway.com>, asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 4:05 PM
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 8:28 PM, John Walley
> <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree these are interesting characteristics and I
> see myself in them as
> > well, at work and even on this list somewhat.
> >
> > I'm curious though, how exactly did Stephen imply
> that you are promoting
> > TE? I must have missed that email. I wonder if that is
> possibly your
> > peculiar perception and if Stephen would agree with
> that? That strikes me as
> > being out of character for both him and you. But there
> I go being a #9. :)
>
> Well, he said the onus is on me to explain my theory of TE.
> But I dont
> really have any theory. I only have an impression. I
> wanted to say that
> the reason I ask questions is because I am missing a
> definition and any
> list of tenets of TE. So for me to make any statement
> there is no context.
> I'd have to provide the definition myself so folks
> could know what I was
> talking about. I said I have an "impression" of
> what TE means. But does
> it correspond to what true promoters of TE would say? I
> have no idea. It
> would be better to go to just a reference source.
>
> There are 8 books listed on Amazon. But do any of them
> explicitly develop
> a definition and a list of tenets? Or do they merely
> allude to the idea?
> I have no idea.
> Somehow I expected someone to say "get the standard
> work: TE 101, a
> Primer". But lacking that recommendation.....
>
> What I would suggest is someone should make a rigorous
> definition. A
> manifesto. Or something like that. Or is that too much?
>
> My personal (unstated) definition of TE, BTW, is a theory
> I think is
> plausible, and i'd guess it probably is similar to
> yours. So although I
> don't think the theory is something I can champion, I
> also wouldn't attack
> the theory. But I am troubled by the issues within
> Christianity the theory
> doesn't seem to adequately address. I am personally
> not intellectually
> satisfied. Worse, I think I could sometimes take the
> position held by the
> skeptics.
>
> Soooooo... sign me ambivalent and ambiguous. I could
> very well expect
> someone would get angry with me for wanting to, on the one
> hand, defend PZ
> Meyers, and on the other hand, defend Dembski. It would
> certainly look like
> flip flopping - like I am all over the place. :)
>
> What I really seek is the reason those skeptical people
> in that meeting
> Dick mentioned should change their minds. If I were them
> I would not
> change my mind.
> :(
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Davids Clounch
> PS, Merry Christmas to all.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Like you do, I accept a gap when it comes to the VB
> and the Resurrection
> > and I agree it is a big gap but I can tolerate this
> ambiguity. What I can't
> > tolerate however is insisting on miracles for every
> aspect of God's Creation
> > when a natural explanation does just fine and is in
> fact pointed to by the
> > evidence.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 12/22/08, David Clounch
> <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: David Clounch
> <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Appeasing TE?
> > > To: "Nucacids"
> <nucacids@wowway.com>
> > > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> > > Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 11:55 AM
> > > *1.* Seen as thinking tangentially, approaching
> tasks from
> > > unsuspected
> > > angles; undisciplined, unpredictable.
> > >
> > > *2.* Could be said to discover problems and
> discover less
> > > consensually
> > > expected avenues of solution.
> > >
> > > *3.* Tends to query a problem's concomitant
> > > assumptions; manipulates
> > > problems.
> > >
> > > *4.* Does things differently.
> > >
> > > *5.* In pursuit of goals liable to challenge
> accepted
> > > means.
> > >
> > > *6.* Capable of detailed routine (system
> maintenance) work
> > > for usually only
> > > short bursts. Quick to delegate routine tasks.
> > >
> > > *7.* Often challenges rules. May have little
> respect for
> > > past custom.
> > >
> > > *8.* Appears to have low self-doubt when
> generating ideas,
> > > not needing
> > > consensus to maintain certitude in face of
> opposition; less
> > > certain when
> > > placed in core of system.
> > >
> > > *9. *Appears insensitive to people when in
> pursuit of
> > > solutions, so often
> > > threatens group cohesion and cooperation.
> > >
> > > *10.* Provides the dynamics to bring about
> periodic radical
> > > change, without
> > > which institutions tend to ossify.
> > >
> > > Wow.. Its quite a list. I feel in my professional
> life I
> > > suffer from most
> > > of these.
> > >
> > > Ergo #8,#9 is going on at work right now. Its
> going to
> > > get me fired or
> > > RIF'd at the next rif. Still, I would have
> guessed I
> > > have a low tolerance
> > > for ambiguity.
> > >
> > > However, right now on the list John Walley thinks
> I have
> > > been attacking TE.
> > > Whereas Stephen thinks I have been promoting TE?
> How much
> > > more ambiguous
> > > can it get? I love it. It's absolutely
> hilarious. So
> > > I haven't responded
> > > to either one. Not sure what to say. I dont
> know who
> > > advocates TE versus
> > > some other concepts. If TE has different camps I
> dont know
> > > what they are or
> > > who is in any given camp. With so many people
> allegedly
> > > believing
> > > everything is an alleged miracle I dont know what
> to say.
> > > Of one thing I am
> > > absolutely certain. If Jesus Christ didn't
> have only
> > > 1/2 a human genome then
> > > there is no way he could be a propitiation for
> > > anybody's sins. Only of he
> > > was 1/2 not descended from a human could he
> accomplish
> > > that. I wonder ...
> > > if all his genetic material came from his mother
> then why
> > > isn't he a
> > > clone? There I go, being irritating and making
> mischief
> > > again. But I see
> > > the engineering of the non-human half of the
> Messiah who
> > > was fully human and
> > > fully divine as the Ultimate Intelligent Design
> event.
> > > Except it pales
> > > compared to the re-engineering of a trillion
> decomposed
> > > cells. If these
> > > things are natural events that happen without an
> outside
> > > agent, but just
> > > happen in the universe from time to time, then it
> is the
> > > skeptics and
> > > naturalists who are suggesting the real
> miracles.
> > > Isn't it a grandiose
> > > case of what used to be called spontaneous
> generation? If
> > > we believe these
> > > things were real then don't we have a gap? A
> whopping
> > > gap? I can live
> > > with the ambiguity of that gap. I'm not sure
> I can
> > > believe the alternative
> > > - spontaneous generation. How scientific is that?
> But
> > > there I am being #9
> > > again. Insensitive.
> > >
> > > Anyway, thanks for your blog. It sure makes a
> person think.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Nucacids
> > > <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Gregory,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "I sympathise with all of what
> you've said in
> > > reply to Michael. I'm
> > > > curious in particular with the last point,
> if you
> > > would consider adding
> > > > IDists of the 'mainstream' variety
> into your
> > > analysis:
> > > >
> > > > "I wonder if someone has ever tested
> YECs, TEs,
> > > and Atheists and IDists]
> > > > for ambiguity tolerance." - Mike
> Gene"
> > > >
> > > > Sure. Hey, this all led me to fire this up:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/content/the-10-signs-of-ambiguity-tolerance/
> > > >
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >

      

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 23 09:19:03 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 23 2008 - 09:19:03 EST