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."
Without liberty, no society can sustain the want to live, in the long term - look at the depression rates in Communist North Korea. Without violating the Golden Rule, such a situation would not have arisen.
That could apply to tribalism quite well. Is the value to the survival of one's own? Nazis had that value in spades.
I'm citing extremes here, but just survival doesn't go very far morally, you have add something to get morality. Survival of what kind of society with what kind of values?
Would their model have been sustainable? They violated the Golden Rule to the most perverse of possible extents. Would the members of such a society not have suffered due to the fact that humans do empathise? Would it have been possible for the members of that society to just ignore the slaughter of other humans, indefinitely, or would it have taken a toll that would produce rebellion from within, thus destabilising such a society that condoned the violation of the Golden Rule? Take a look at the history of slavery in this country. Any similar patterns?
You didn't answer me directly regarding Samuel's prophecy. Was he a false-prophet? Or was what was recorded falsehood?
Survival of what kind of society with what kind of values?
One that is eager to sustain life, and the will to live. One that celebrates life itself.
If they could, then slavery would be good, right? The question is which is the higher moral value. Which derives its value from the other.
Did liberty have more value for Patrick Henry than survival? Do those who prefer slavery to death have higher or lower values?
I think there's a good chance that if you added it all up, longevity of societies not following the golden rule win.
Would that make them of higher moral value?
It’s impossible for a society to sustain the want to live and to be alive, if it is under slavery, or condones it. Remember again, it’s not about the individual alone. It’s also about the descendants of the individuals, and beyond - the survival of the society that will guarantee the survival of its individuals’ descendants, and therefore, the survival of the society into the future.
A society where individuals submit themselves to slavery, is a doomed society. The violation of the Golden Rule is further encouraged, and eventually results in the destabilisation of such societies - making them non-conducive to thrive in. Would individuals in such societies not want to rise against this, so that they may redeem themselves of the oppression, and in turn, redeem their fellow beings too? Isn’t such a motive an application of the Golden Rule, when tyranny is fought not just for the benefit of the individual alone, but for the rest as well?
There is an interconnect between generations that the Golden Rule is critical in maintaining, that you are choosing to ignore. It’s not about the individual alone. Humans are transient entities - and their offspring is what allows them to maintain a mark into the future - to ‘transcend’ this barrier of finite life. Humans are also social beings, whose lives are critically sustained by the society that they belong to. Damage to either will cause damage to each other.
Name one.
All the societies in history that used slaves.
Probably for your purposes, certainly.
“I asked a very simple question. The entity in Genesis 3:14 that tempted Eve to take the fruit, was it a metaphorical serpent or the real animal?
And now you wish to dictate the very simple answer so that you may get on with your point: Either that the Judeo-Christian God is a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, and capriciously malevolent bully as prophesized in the First Book of Dawkins, or that nothing in the Bible is really real so we can all heave a sigh of relief and relax?
In asking you what metaphoric lesson might be taken away from the injunction against covetousness, or the commandment to not steal, I was telling you that nothing in The Bible can be taken entirely metaphorically or, in all likelihood, entirely literally. I understand that my reply will not please you, but I’m not here to please you.
“Do you see everything else as metaphors, as well?”
No. If you had paid heed to my reference to post # 1481(in post #1482), also copied to you, you would know that I do not (“I do accept scripture literally (as in “Thou shalt not steal”). I also accept scripture metaphorically, allegorically, historically, doctrinally and literarily”).
“The slaying of the Amalekite infants by divine order in 1 Samuel 15:3”
And, we’re back to the misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, and capriciously malevolent bullying motif.
This text (1 Samuel 15:3) is a subject that has occupied Hebrew scholars and ethicists from time immemorial. Some point out that the Hebrew people reacted when they were subjected to an unprovoked surprise attack, extermination being the intent. Others note that since Amalek does not exist today, the commandment cannot be carried out. Most seem to agree that lessons from that time may have application today where over 7.5 million Israelis, including over 1.5 million Arab Israelis are surrounded by 200 million hostile Arabs bent on Israel’s extermination.
If you wish an in-depth discussion on 1 Samuel 15:3, take it up with the Hebrew scholars who have pursued this subject for millennia. As a simple man, I am involved in more humble matters such as working out what is one to do next if one turns the other check and is struck again by his enemy, or how is one to love his neighbor when the so-and-so throws garbage over the back fence. Or, on a larger stage, as a humble voting citizen of a great republic, what to do about a people who declare their intent to murder Americans wholesale and who demonstrate they mean to do it.
But, with respect to investing in man’s humane treatment of his fellow man, we must observe that it is the Judeo-Christian West that has labored for a thousand years to regulate the issues of the meaning of lawful war, the origins of war, the avarice and cruelty of war, the treatment of prisoners, when the right of conquest and the claiming of the spoils of war are just and when they are not, the rights of discovery and the treatment of native peoples, the securing of peace as the prime objective of war, questions of maritime law, redress for injuries, restitution of property and recompense for wrongs done, and the laws of embassy and envoys. Can the same be said of Asian despots? Of Atheistic socialist tyrannies? Not likely, Pilgrim.
What set off this controversy (insofar as it concerns my participation) was my suggestion that it is not “fantastic tales” about talking serpents or talking donkeys that are central to Biblical Instruction, but rather lessons such as to heed the two great commandments, to honor one’s mother and father, to murmur not at the ways of Providence, and all the other familiar biblical injunctions. The scandal has not ceased since.
Although a considerable amount of dust has been subsequently kicked up and many great gaseous discharges emitted, that simple issue has yet to be confronted. Other than the exchange of talking points, little more can be done to have a productive discussion unless common assumptions are established. I’m not buying into the insistence that “fairy tales” are central to Biblical Instruction and must be accepted as a common assumption.
To answer your original question about the entity that tempted Eve. The Serpent, said to be a subtle, sly, and treacherous creature, is thought by Hebrew scholars to be representative of Satan, whether literal or metamorphic, being open to conjecture. What is not open to conjecture, so far as I am concerned, is that temptation is real.
Very real.
I’m a bit tied up at work for a while now. I guarantee you a reply as soon as the schedule frees me some time. Both of your comments are extremely conducive to a detailed reply.
Take your time.
“Science is a body of knowledge and understanding generated by reason. As such, it is properly the fluid, since it is the whole thing that is science.”
I think we need to acknowledge that the aim of science is to discover facts, or particulars. That is, logic (reason) exists prior to facts, and is used as a medium to obtain and to propagate those facts.
Clearly, the analogy portraying science as the raft (particular, concrete, a posteriori facts) carried by the current of logic is more accurate. (It’s best not to try to hijack an analogy, because one’s familiarity with it is not likely to be as extensive as that of its author.)
“Reason is a logical process that stands on it’s own. It is not dependent on any being, or any premise for validity.”
Any particular line of reasoning must have a premise. But particular reasoning does not give general validity to reason itself. As I have stated, reason can be considered valid ultimately through faith alone.
"I think we need to acknowledge that the aim of science is to discover facts, or particulars."
No. The purpose is to know and understand the world.
"That is, logic (reason) exists prior to facts"
No. reason is a process and facts are simply beliefs. There is no validity to any temporal ordering of reason and any set of beliefs.
"science... is used as a medium to obtain and to propagate those facts.
No. It's as I said, Science is a body of knowledge and understanding generated by reason; it is the whole thing that is science. You are thinking of the scientific method, which is not science itself. Science itself includes everything.
"Clearly, the analogy portraying science as the raft (particular, concrete, a posteriori facts) carried by the current of logic is more accurate."
No. That's not clear at all. Also, a current represents a flow of something in time and is represented by: things/t. Logic is a process, which is not similar in any way to a flow. A body of knowledge and understanding with a commonality of having the property of being validated by the scientific method does have a similarity to flow and can be modeled mathematically as a flow: things/t.
"It’s best not to try to hijack an analogy, because one’s familiarity with it is not likely to be as extensive as that of its author."
Logic, reason and science are independent of any author. Either the analogy is a true representation, or it's not.
Re: "Reason is a logical process that stands on it’s own. It is not dependent on any being, or any premise for validity."
"Any particular line of reasoning must have a premise.
No.
" ...particular reasoning does not give general validity to reason itself.
Yes it does. Example: A=A.
" As I have stated, reason can be considered valid ultimately through faith alone."
Faith is simply belief in what someone has said, regardless of one's justifications for doing so. Reason requires rational justifications for it's validity, and as I said, it is author independent.
The separation of science from philosophy was an academic separation, but it mirrors a conceptual separation which I’ve been trying to explain. I reject the notion that you don’t understand the difference between general reasoning and particular facts. As pointed out earlier, it’s like the difference between mathematical statements using the variable x and mathematical statements of particular values for x.
Of course a process is a kind of flow. (This is a bit silly, picking apart a perfectly good metaphor.)
A=A only validates its own particular reasoning. What I was trying to explain is that it does not validate reason in the abstract.
If you contemplate Descartes’ cogito proposition, you’ll see how faith is the groundwork for reason.
And the claim that the law of conservation of energy extends infinitely into the past has yet to be demonstrated.
You must be referring to the exclusionary effect the scientific method has on rubbish.
"...but it mirrors a conceptual separation which I’ve been trying to explain. I reject the notion that you don’t understand the difference between general reasoning and particular facts. As pointed out earlier, it’s like the difference between mathematical statements using the variable x and mathematical statements of particular values for x.
Sicence contains not only the methods, but also the results of having applied the methods.
"This is a bit silly, picking apart a perfectly good metaphor."
The metaphor you presented was not an accurate representation of reality, as I pointed out. Science contains not only the methods, but also the results of having applied the methods.
"A=A only validates its own particular reasoning. What I was trying to explain is that it does not validate reason in the abstract."
It is the identity staement and it applies to all things, including sentient, rational beings and reason. It means a thing is what it is and not something else, regarless of what anyone might claim contrary to scientific evidence.
"If you contemplate Descartes’ cogito proposition, you’ll see how faith is the groundwork for reason."
What by magic? Faith is simply a belief in something that has been said, written, or imagined, regardless of any particular justification.
"And the claim that the law of conservation of energy extends infinitely into the past has yet to be demonstrated."
The evidence that the law does and is in fact independent of time and any other dimension is voluminous. As I previously pointed out, if you wish to claim the law is invalid and only holds in special cases, then you must provide evidence for your claim. I also pointed out that the BB is not in any way evidence for your claim, because science knows and understands the BB as an energy transformation, not the creation of energy out of nothing.
“if you wish to claim the law is invalid and only holds in special cases, then you must provide evidence for your claim.”
Conservation of energy holds in all cases. But this statement is only true when structured in the present tense.
Now do you understand?
Thanks for the ping.
“1. Your god is supreme, and can do whatever it wants. 2. Humans cannot understand why your god does certain things - they are beyond normal comprehension.”
First, let’s acknowledge that number one above is as solid a reason as any could ever be. No refutation of it makes sense.
We have no choice but to acknowledge that things and ideas exist in hierarchies. The “Golden Rule” does not supersede God’s authority or supreme will.
Looking at number two—it’s another “mode of reasoning” for which there is no logical refutation. For example, imagine one possible argument: we can understand everything God does. Now, does that sound reasonable?
Would it ever make sense, under any contortion of the imagination, for you to expect your dog to turn to you on some sunny day in the park and say fetch, James? Or for a salamander to pass the final exam in an advanced physics course?
To attempt judgement of Divine Intent (Lord forgive us) is more absurd than believing you can build a nuclear powered submarine with nothing but a four year old child’s tinker toys.
What source informs us that we can use human standards to judge God’s will? And if you’re not using human standards, please explain what kind of standards you’re using.
Here’s the insurmountable problem for the atheist/agnostic argument: the claim that God’s actions don’t meet secular human standards of morality is not a refutation of God’s existence.
If anything, it accepts the premise of God’s existence.
“Whose God? Yours? My neighbor’s? The ‘official’ God? Which one?”
The “multiple gods” theory is as telling as the “multiple universes” theory.
Much like the attorney for the pimple-faced, buck-toothed delinquent who insists in open court: “But Your Honor, that couldn’t have been my client who snatched the old lady’s purse. There are many pimple-faced, buck-toothed delinquents out on the street. And on top of that, there are many with fingerprints exactly like my client’s.”
You didn’t answer my question.
Your statement appears with no evidence whatsoever. Provide the evidence. Provide the evidence that the law did not hold at any arbitrary time in the past.
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.