Oh… here it comes. Now you write:
"I never said that “evolutionary theory” was “invalidated.” I’m not a creationist. I said that “neo-Darwinism” is outmoded. "
HOWEVER, dear sir, you tried to make it sound like Giberson et al. might be able to succeed
with convincing Young Earthers IF ONLY they knew about the NEW view on Evolutionary
science.
oy…
I’ll be perfectly happy if you re-state what you SHOULD have said - - and then start a new
thread telling us about the New and Improved Evolutionary Science that Collins and
Giberson need to learn.
George Brooks.
ADDENDUM:
As for the definition of Theism and Pantheism … I DO hope you will accept the operational expertise of The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy!
Under the article for Panentheism we read the following:
Terminology
Because modern “panentheism” developed under the influence of German Idealism, Whiteheadian process philosophy, and current scientific thought, panentheists employ a variety of terms with meanings that have specialized content.
Theological terms as understood by panentheists:
Classical or Traditional Theism:
The understanding that ultimate reality is a being which is distinct from the world and any
other reality. This distinction often develops into an ontological separation between God
and the world that makes any interaction between God and the world problematic.
Pantheism:
=============
A type of theism [George’s emphasis!] . . .
. . . that stresses the identity of God and the world ontologically. This identity is expressed in different
manifestations so distinctions can be made, but the distinctions are temporary. There is often a strong
sense of necessity in God’s creation of the world so that God as God must express deity in creation.
Transcendence:
Generally, God’s externality to the world so that God is unlimited by any other being
or reality. Hegel and then Hartshorne understand transcendence as including all that
is in order to avoid any reality external to God that limits God.
Immanence:
God’s presence and activity within the world. Panentheists assert that traditional theism
limits its affirmation of God’s immanence by understanding immanence as the
transcendent presence of the supernatural Being within the natural realm. When this
divine presence is understood as distinctly transcendent, God’s presence and activity
within the world as natural is an intervention of the supernatural within the natural.
God, then, is absent from the natural except in specific cases of intervention.
Kenosis:
Divine self-emptying, or withdrawal, of infinite being while present in the world.
Another column? This standard blurb has a way of ending up on every other thread at BioLogos. As for thinking in the old way, shouldn’t you be concerned about getting the ID folks on board with the accepted age of the earth?
Well… I have a copy of what you wrote.
But I’ll let it your plea stand.
George Brooks
P.S.
Rather than create yet ANOTHER post on the issue of Pantheism, I put my evidence,
from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, into a P.S. addendum on my posting above.
But I’m sure you will want to contradict Stanford as well…
"No, I don’t accept the “expertise” of the Stanford encyclopedia. Many of its articles are just plain bad. "
Sigh.
The problem with CLASSICAL definitions is that they are OLD!
The term Pantheism wasn’t even coined until after Spinoza’s death in 1677.
And then PanEntheism was coined by Karl Krause’s (born 1781; died 1832)
to further refine the ramifications of Pantheism and Theism.
I think you should spend MORE time worrying about Christian heresies…
and less time defending your imaginary lines in the sand.
You don’t make any sense to me. My reference to the relative newness of the term “pantheism” was not
to suggest that there were no pantheists before the term was coined. But … just as obviously … these
people had to be called SOMETHING OTHER than pantheists, right?
I don’t think I need to discuss any further points with someone who makes blanket rejections about
the articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia, or who makes the ASTOUNDING conclusion that even though
someone might have the most elaborate notion of Deity… immortal, omniscient and so forth
… but still not be a legitimate Theist in your view (as though the term Theist was some how
some Holy Relic that needed to be protected from deviants).
Now that I know you are most zealous on the issue of defending [poor] Christianity from
Darwin-inspired heresies … I think I understand enough about your mindset to know that
you and I shouldn’t worry too much about what the other writes or thinks. We know it’s
never going to be resolved between us.
You should found your own group: the Anti-Bio-Logos. I’m sure it will be a big hit …
[quote=“Eddie, post:16, topic:3231”]
Actually, I use the word “neo-Darwinian” in the standard way.[/quote]
Actually, you use “neo-DarwinISM,” not “neo-Darwinian.” There’s no telling if you’re using it in any standard way to refer to anything scientific, because all you do is drop names and ignore all mechanisms and data.
Which you don’t seem to understand at all.
No, my objection is the lack of content in your denialist rants. This is a fine example.
Mindless pseudoacademic namedropping…
More mindless pseudoacademic namedropping, no science to be seen…
With which the target audience of BioLogos is not familiar. That’s why they post about the actual science, while you drop names.
But you’re incapable of discussing how evolution works. You just drop names as though that represents erudition.
All namedropping, no scientific content whatsoever.
You’ve shown no evidence of understanding what either term means. You just drop names. Your comments are scientifically vapid.
. . . and yet . . . over the period of multiple days of dispute … @Eddie still finds
it impossible (or unwise?) to name any source he is relying upon to restrict the
application of the term Theist.
I have quoted several sources … and he dismisses the sources. But he never
proposes his own sources.
Watch out, Eddie … there’s a Monist standing behind you …
NOTE:
One editor writes “William Rowe maintains that it is helpful to distinguish between narrow and broad
senses of Theism . . . Theism in the broad sense is the belief in the existence of some sort of divine
being or divine reality. As Rowe points out, to be a theist in the narrow sense is to be a theist in the
broad sense, but the reverse is not true: One may be a theist in the broad sense without believing
there is a supremely good, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being who created the world.” From
William L. Rowe on Philosophy of Religion: Selected Writings (2007)
WOW! I want to thank all the participants in the above “argument about stuff”. This is why I joined BioLogos–to listen to some intelligent people discuss the important things in life, namely what is God about, anyway??? In my parish religion was too much “pay, pray & obey”.
I appreciate Eddie’s insistence that one should know and acknowledge what ‘slot’ one fits into: orthodox Christian, TE/EC, panentheist, pantheist, etc. But, if I understand George correctly, those of us who are not committed to teach others, should be given some ‘wriggle room’. I have remained (at least nominally) Roman Catholic all my life, but at this late stage, I am happy that I have been able to incorporate elements of other beliefs: e.g. the evangelical enthusiasm of the Haarsmas and Christy, the I.D.views of Eddie, the Original Blessing of Teilhard, & the panentheism of Hartshorne. God did not create us from identical parts off an assembly line, and I believe we please Him most if we carefully pick and choose for our journey what has best served our fellow humans in the past for their journeys through life. Yes, even advice from heathens like Chief Seattle.
Al Leo
“Now can you go?” I don’t know. Are you done trying to dismiss people’s position on God?
You write:
“Again, all I’m asking for is honesty in advertising. I’m not asking anyone to adopt any of my religious
or philosophical views; I’m just asking everyone to be completely honest and transparent about their
own. There can’t be a good-faith discussion if people are not being honest and as clear as they can
possibly be. So all equivocation of terms must be avoided, and to that end, it’s best if everyone in
a discussion adopts standard usage. Now can I go?”
You keep saying it is BEST if people use “standard usage”. But not if in the process you tell
someone who believes in God - - that he is no Theist.
You want honesty? I’ll give it to you: I found it incredibly arrogant, presumptuous and
manipulative.
I think you should worry less about “standard usage” and more about respecting the
integrity of each individual’s religious views.
The “THEO” in THEISM is very important to all of us.
For you to pronounce who has the THEO and who doesn’t - - well, that’s just
asking for trouble…