I don’t see that you are. You are conflating the science with the ideology.
Here’s an example of Dawkins’s actual science:
H.J.Brockmann, A.Grafen & R.Dawkins (1979) Evolutionarily stable nesting strategy in a digger wasp. Journal of Theoretical Biology 77, 473-496
Here’s an example of his ideology. Note the journal title, Roger:
R.Dawkins (1979) In defence of selfish genes. Philosophy 56, 556-573
Please take care to distinguish between science and philosophy and ideology.
First of all even though Dawkins claims that The Selfish Gene is a book of science in his article in Philosophy, on the very first page of The Selfish Gene he makes a strong philosophical statement, which he reinforces on the 30th anniversary edition, p. 267.
The fact is that for him there is little or no separation between science and ideology which seems to be the primary reason why many scientists are critical of him. They seem to agree with the “science,” but not his ideology. I disagree with both and think that is important to point this out.
Dennis Noble and Stephen J. Gould have criticized the Selfish Gene as an ideology. Lynn Margulis and E. O. Wilson have criticized his science.
I am making these distinctions, but he makes it difficult.
Yes, as well as I Cor. 9:19-23, where Paul describes his willingness not just to tolerate differences of opinion, but to become “all things to all men” so that some might be saved. Most of the evangelical leaders in the U.S. seem to have the opposite approach these days, drawing more and more lines in the cultural sand to differentiate between the clean and the unclean, between those who have God’s approval and those who are sinners. This was the path of the Pharisees … but now I’m in danger of climbing onto my soapbox, so I’ll leave it to you guys to draw your own conclusions.
I realize that you’re speaking in generalities, so a thousand qualifications could be added to your statement. I’ll resist that urge, somewhat. haha. It is interesting to note, however, that even though Kierkegaard is regarded by many as the father of existentialism and post-modernism, Pascal expressed many of the same ideas as a contemporary of Descartes:
"For, in fact, what is man in nature? A Nothing in comparison with the Infinite, an All
in comparison with the Nothing, a mean between nothing and everything. Since he is infinitely removed from comprehending the extremes, the end of things and their beginning are hopelessly hidden from him in an impenetrable secret; he is equally incapable of seeing the Nothing from which he was made, and the Infinite in which he is swallowed up. What will he do then, but perceive the appearance of the middle of things, in an eternal despair of knowing either their beginning or their end. All things proceed from the Nothing, and are borne towards the Infinite. Who will follow these marvellous processes? The Author of these wonders understands them. None other can do so.
“… Let us, then, take our compass; we are something, and we are not everything. The nature of our existence hides from us the knowledge of first beginnings which are born of the Nothing; and the littleness of our being conceals from us the sight of the Infinite. Our intellect holds the same position in the world of thought as our body occupies in the expanse of nature. … This is our true state; this is what makes us incapable of certain knowledge and of absolute ignorance. We sail within a vast sphere, ever drifting in uncertainty, driven from end to end. When we think to attach ourselves to any point and to fasten to it, it wavers and leaves us; and if we follow it, it eludes our grasp, slips past us, and vanishes for ever. Nothing stays for us. This is our natural condition and yet most contrary to our inclination; we burn with desire to find solid ground and an ultimate sure foundation whereon to build a tower
reaching to the Infinite. But our whole groundwork cracks, and the earth opens to abysses.”[quote=“Relates, post:20, topic:5955”]
Part of postmodernism is Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, which encourage people to think that all truth is relative. However this is not accurate. The theory says that all things are relational, which is a subtle, but very important distinction. When we understand that all things are relational, we are able to bring together objective truth and subjective truth under the concept of relational truth bringing science, philosophy, and theology into agreement and dialog.
This puts the spotlight on theology because God as Christians know Him is Relational, is Love, Justice, and Freedom. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and we forget this, we lose the Gospel.
[/quote]
I totally agree with your conclusion, but not the road that you took to arrive there. The Theory of Relativity is a description of physical realities, not spiritual realities. The physical world may (or may not) shed light, by way of analogy, on philosophical or theological concepts such as truth, but we shouldn’t think a scientific theory tells us anything definite about God.
If I may, the proper way to understand the relational aspect of creation is through the Image of God. Most people look for structural distinctions between man and the animal kingdom to describe the Imago Dei, but it is actually the dynamic aspect of the Image that comes first, which is that man is immediately in the context of relationship upon his creation – relationship to God, relationship to others (Eve), and relationship to the created world of nature. In short, man is to love God, love others as himself, and serve as God’s representative (vice-regent) on Earth. The “gifts” – reason, volition, aesthetic sense, communication, etc. – were given that man might fulfill his God-given role.
Yes, but notice the title of the thread…
Hi Jay,
Well, most of my data is coming from fellow classmates in college, so it may not be entirely indicative (small sample sizes, etc) and it could very well be that I (and my classmates who claim to be “existentialists”) may be misunderstanding it. Though, I think it’s a broad enough worldview to accommodate misunderstandings.
Anyway, I think the connection is in believing whatever gets you through the day. Basically, don’t pass judgment on anyone because what they believe works for them. I agree with that line of thinking to an extent, but it slowly slips into futility, I think.
Sorry if my thinking is a bit muddled, it was an observation I’d made in passing and hadn’t worked through it entirely.
Also, I’d never heard of John Frame before your comment, and just perusing some of his ideas, I’m very intrigued. His thoughts on knowing God remind me of Plantinga’s Knowledge and Christian Belief.
No, that’s all I was looking for. I had the same sense that you described – most young folks just believe in “whatever gets you through the day.” I just wondered if a sudden interest in existentialist philosophy had broken out on your campus. Haha. But I think you have accurately described the situation.
Frame is an interesting thinker in the Reformed tradition. His “Theology of Lordship” series is very good.
Thank you for your comments and your agreement. I certainly cannot disagree with your comments about the Image of God. What I did not use in part because I have used it many times before is John 1:1-3. God the Father created the universe through God the Son/Logos.
Here the NT combines Science the physical, the universe with Philosophy, the rational, Logos, with the spiritual, the Divine, Jesus Christ. The same can be said of the Gen. 1:26-27.
My main point is that the Either/Or point of view is false. Seeing Reality from three points of view, which reinforce, rather than contradict each other, is the only way to move forward That is why we need the Trinitarian relational world view to replace Western dualism. Natural vs Supernatural does not cut it. I hope you agree.
I hear where scientists criticize his atheist ideology, but not the “science” which forms the Darwinian basis of that ideology. Could you please give me an example.
Oh no, it’s definitely not a movement or anything; most of the people who hold the view don’t even acknowledge it explicitly as existentialism (one guy did, which is when I made the connection–he’s a Nietzsche fan, something I don’t see much today–at least not in any serious sense).
I’ll have to look into the Lordship series. Could you elaborate on the beef Geisler has with Frame and Thiselton? I couldn’t find anything summarizing the problems (though of course summaries are always tricky on issues like this).
Hmmm. I think I agree. I’m definitely not “down” with natural v. supernatural. Coming back to philosophy for a minute, Wittgenstein noted that philosophy stirs up trouble for itself when it interprets one language game by the rules of another. Medieval thinkers coined the term “supernatural,” but the term is not used in the Bible, and the very concept would be meaningless to the ancients. For them, “reality” involved two parts – the seen and the unseen. There was no thought of a “natural” vs. a “supernatural” aspect. Thus, in order to be consistent with the biblical worldview, we should seek to describe reality in terms of physical/spiritual, but we fall into error when we attempt to describe it in terms of natural/supernatural.
I think you would find a lot to like in Frame’s tri-perspectivalism. See my reply to Noah below for a couple of links.
Geisler is a culture warrior in the worst sense. He’s one of the framers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (and the follow-up statement on hermeneutics, which demands a literal interpretation of Genesis), and he goes after anyone and everyone he thinks is compromising absolute truth or the inerrancy of the Bible, as he defines both. For example, a review of his recent book, Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate, lists the following people as violating the Chicago standards:
Ben Meyer, Birger Gerhadsson, Bruce Waltke, Carlos Bovell, Charles Talbert,Christopher Ansberry, Christopher Hays, Christian Smith, Clark Pinnock, Craig Blomberg, Craig Evans, Craig Keener, D. Brent Sandy, Daniel P. Fuller, Daniel Harlow, Daniel Wallace, Darrell Bock, David Capes, David E. Garland, Donald Hagner, Donald K. McKim, Douglas Moo, Edwin Yamauchi, E. P. Sanders, Ernst Wendland, Gary R. Habermas, George Eldon Ladd, Gerd Theissen, Grant R. Osborne, Gregory A. Boyd, H. C. Kee, Heath Thomas, I. Howard Marshall, J. Merrick, J. P. Holding, Jack B. Rogers, James Barr, James Bruckner, James Charlesworth, James Crossley, James D. G. Dunn, Jeremy Evans, James Hamilton, Joel N. Lohr, Joel Watts, John Byron, John R. Franke, John Schneider, John H.Walton, Justin Taylor, KenSchenck, Kenton Sparks, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Lee McDonald, Leith Anderson, Leon Morris, Martin Soskice, Matthew Montonini, Michael F. Bird, Michael Green, Michael R. Licona, Moises Silva, Murray Harris, N.T. Wright, Nick Peters, Nijya Gupta, Paul Copan, Paul Jewett, Peter E. Enns, Paul Ricouer, Peter H. Davids, Phillip Long, Richard Burridge, Richard Horsley, Robert H. Gundry, Robert W. Yarborough, Robert Webb,Scot McKnight, Stephen M. Garrett, Thomas Schreiner, Tremper Longman III,W. David Beck, Walter Liefield, William Lane Craig, William Warren, and William Webb.
So, by Geisler’s standards, he may be the only faithful teacher left in the church. The problem with his approach is precisely its absolutism. As the list above makes clear, he is certain that he is in possession of the absolute truth and is ready to throw out everyone who is in error in even the slightest detail.
On Thiselton, his book on hermeneutics, The Two Horizons, specifically references the work of Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and Wittgenstein, and regardless of the specific use that Thiselton makes of their ideas, the simple fact that he interacts with contemporary philosophy is enough for Geisler to write it all off as “relativism.”
Frame, likewise, has been accused of relativism, but it is mostly based on the fact that he uses “existential” as one of the categories of his Christian ethics: normative, situational, and existential. Vern Poythress, a former student of Frame’s, explains it thus:
"Human knowledge arises in the context of human finiteness. Any particular human being always knows and experiences truth from the standpoint of who he is.2 He has a perspective. He can learn from others by listening sympathetically to what they understand from their differing backgrounds or perspectives. The diversity of human beings leads to a diversity in perspectives. John Frame affirms both the limitations of any finite human perspective and the absoluteness of God’s knowledge. "It [perspectivalism] presupposes absolutism [the absoluteness of God’s viewpoint]."3 The presence of God implies that truth is accessible to human beings, and that there is a difference between truth and falsehood. In this way, Frame is an “absolutist” rather than a relativist. But he invites us to take seriously the insights and the differences in emphasis that arise from viewing a particular subject-matter from more than one point of view.
"Besides showing a wider interest in diverse human perspectives,4 Frame introduces the use of perspectival triads, and affirms their relation to the Trinitarian character of God.5 Frame uses primarily two triads. To discuss God’s Lordship, he uses the triad of authority, control, and presence. As Lord, God has authority over us, exerts control over us, and is present to us. Each of these three aspects of God’s Lordship can serve as a perspective on who God is and how he relates to us. These three perspectives are involved in one another, and each helps to define and deepen our understanding of the other two. All three aspects of Lordship are involved is all God’s relations to his creatures.6
"To discuss ethics, Frame uses another triad of perspectives, namely the normative, situational, and existential perspectives.7 The normative perspective focuses on the norms, God’s law and his expressions of his ethical standards for human beings. The situational perspective focuses on the situation in which a human being must act, and endeavors to discern what attitudes and actions promote the glory of God within that situation. The existential perspective focuses on persons and their motives, particularly the central motive of love. Again, these three are involved in one another. God’s norms tell us to pay attention to the situation–in particular, the needs of others around us. The norms also tell us to pay attention to our attitudes (existential). Similarly, the situation pushes us to pay attention to the norms, because God is the most important persons in our situation, and what he desires matters supremely. The situation also pushes us to pay attention to the persons in the situation. Our own attitudes must be inspected for their potential to change the situation for good or ill.
Because God is Lord of all, these perspectives harmonize in principle. God promulgates the norms; God controls the situation; God created the human persons in his image. But in a fallen situation of sin, human beings have distortions in their ethical knowledge, and the use of one perspective can help in straightening out distortions that people have introduced in the context of another perspective."
Here is the article quoted above.
Here is Frame’s own A Primer on Perspectivalism
Thank you for your response. We still see things from quite different perspectives.
A large part of the NT is the attempted reconciliation of Greek and Jewish world views. A huge gulf lay between the Greek pagan philosophical culture and the Jewish Yhawist legalistic culture. The values, language, and outlook of both cultures were very different.
One of the interfaces of this clash was the translation of the Hebre4w Bible into Greek, which was done in Egypt, the hotbed of Hellenistic culture by Jewish scholars who were fluent in both Hebrew and Greek. This took place before the advent of Christianity and was the Bible of the first century where few people read Hebrew and most read Greek.
When Jesus is quoted in the NT as quoting the Great Commandment from Deuteronomy, He is not telling people to love the Lord, your God with all heart, soul, and strength," He is telling them to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul.” in Matthew which is what it says in the Septuagint Greek Bible or adding mind to heart, soul, and strength" combining the Greek with the Hebrew. The Greeks revers the Mind, while the Jews the body.
Jesus came to reconcile Greeks and Jews and to do this his followers had to create a new faith based on Him which could bring these great traditions together and transcend them. It is the rational, Logos, that was the new aspect. We still have the physical and the spiritual, but where do we put the rational. We cannot make it part of the physical, and we dare not make it superior to the spiritual as many try to do.
It is the Trinity where the Church brought these two traditions together lay the foundation for the triune world view that we need to make the way forward that we all need, but very few seek.
We need to go back to the basics of the NT. Frame does sound interesting, but until we do this I don’t see how we can do anything, and from what I hear I don’t think he has done this.
I agree, Roger, if S.G is “true science”, then there is a problem. But we might still consider the term ‘selfish gene’ as a useful analog (metaphor?) for discussion purposes while denying it relevance as a scientific model.
In all the discussions I’ve seen about Dawkins’ writings, only two books get center stage: “The Blind Watchmaker” (one that made him famous) and “The God Delusion” (the one that made him infamous with people of Faith). Why has no one seen the importance of his “The Ancestor’s Tale” in which he recounts the history of life on earth as a take-off on “Canterbury Tales”; i.e., as a journey backwards in evolutionary time beginning with humankind of modern times?? In this book he clearly supports the official Catholic position clearly enunciated by Pope John Paul II that belief in evolution is perfectly acceptable IF we accept the fact (not just the premise) that humankind is an exception.
In “The Ancestor’s Tale” (2004), p. 35 Dawkins writes: “Archeology suggests that something very special began to happen to our species around 40,000 years ago. Anatomically, our ancestors who lived before this watershed date were the same as those who came later (i.e. no genetic difference)….Something happened then…I like Jared Diamond’s name for it, the Great Leap Forward. (And further on…) Perhaps the great Leap Forward coincided with the sudden discovery of what we might call a **new software technique.**"
Certainly Dawkins was not proposing a “new software technique” as a scientific model, but he had to admit that evolutionary science was currently unable to offer such a model. So then he is forced to admit: “Much as I would like to linger around the heady time of the Great Leap Forward,…we must press on” He then fills in over 600 pages with a commendable account of how Darwinian evolution explains all other life forms.
So the Evangelist of Atheism seems forced to accept the hypothesis of a Supernatural Programmer to explain humankind’s uniqueness. On the other hand, BioLogos should not be required to specify the exact nature of the way God directed the evolution of life before the appearance of humankind. The GLF may have been a unique event in evolutionary history.
Al Leo
Thanks for elaboration!
That is quite a list of names. Though there are some names on the list I can understand accusing of deviating noticeably from orthodoxy (Sanders, Enns, Sparks, come to mind, though with Enns and Sparks I probably would say their motives seem to be innocent enough). I especially find Sandy and Walton’s inclusion laughable given that they go to pains to affirm the Chicago Statement at the beginning of The Lost World of Scripture. Licona, Craig Evans, and W.L. Craig are all profs at my school, so I guess we’re all doomed heretics!
But your expansion on Thiselton and Frame reminds me of how Wright was treated for his work on the New Perspective on Paul (which I find pretty much not radical and has been overblown by Ligon Duncan, et al.) and how Licona was basically accused of turning into Bart Ehrman for one small hermeneutical issue. Both Wright and Licona (and from what I gather, Thiselton and Frame) are very well within the grounds of orthodoxy but say one thing that doesn’t tickle the fancy of Geisler or Mohler and they get nearly ostracized for it (Licona especially–he was treated terribly by Mohler and co). In what I see from Frame, I cannot help but feel like he’s hitting on a deep truth and if he’s truly been ignored because he used the term ‘existentialism’ and maybe insinuated that subjective experience matters, then that’s an absolute travesty.
Thanks for teaching me something new, Jay! I also have enjoyed your recent comments over at The Hump.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.