God's use of natural laws & the Western scientific tradition

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

You affirm the special creation of Adam and Eve. Why? Isn’t that just a failure of nerve, given your general willingness to see natural causes in creation as well as in the world today?

No. If I one day find evidence in Scripture which convinces me Adam and Eve weren’t specially created, I’ll follow that evidence. Bu I don’t see it.

@Eddie

You are aware, I trust, that BioLogos has (directly or indirectly) denied the special creation of Adam and Eve?

Yes I am very well aware of their position.

@Eddie

If you hold out against that science in order to hang on to a specially created first couple, you are guilty of the same thing you are charging the others with: “… they want to sequester this part of the universe away and say “No, this bit is special, He couldn’t have done that with this bit”.”

No I’m not. I’m fully prepared to accept that God could have created Adam and Eve via evolution, or could have selected them from an existing population. I just haven’t seen a convincing argument for this, and all the evidence I’ve seen points in a different direction.

@Eddie

I now know that the main lines of argument of Jon, myself, and others will not have any influence upon you.

Indeed.

@Eddie

I was pointing out that you were comparing Calvin’s Christianity to other forms of Christianity…

No, I was commenting directly and specifically on Calvin. I didn’t mention any other forms of Christianity. You did.

[quote=“Eddie, post:166, topic:4380”]
…but if one is going to choose one’s theologian on the basis of that theologian’s failings in practical life…[/quote]

I have no idea what “choose one’s theologian” is supposed to mean, or why anyone would do this. Nor is it relevant what anyone else was doing in Europe at the time. What’s relevant is that Calvin simply didn’t follow Christ, like plenty of other murderers in his era who were at the same time extremely religious. End of story. Telling me all about how much he read and studied the Bible (as if I didn’t know), doesn’t change that. It’s patently obvious that the spirit of Christ was not at the core of how he lived his life.

[quote=“Eddie, post:166, topic:4380”]
The fact that Calvin was anti-Semitic, even if verified, would have absolutely no relevance to ascertaining the correctness of his Biblical exegesis or systematic theology regarding issues such as omnipotence, predestination, creation, fall, redemption, the sacraments, etc. That argument is strictly ad hominem and doesn’t warrant a theological reply.[/quote]

Firstly I didn’t say it had any relevance to ascertaining the correctness of his Biblical exegesis, etc, etc, etc. Though when someone is as anti-Semitic as he was, it’s clear they’re doing something wrong. Secondly you don’t seem to understand what an ad hominem argument is. An ad hominem argument takes the form “Person A has moral failing B, so his argument C is false”. I didn’t do that.

@Eddie

The intertestamental works that you cite are influenced by Hellenistic conceptions and in some cases read the Hebrew Bible through Hellenistic glasses.

More handwaving. Yet again I see no specifics here.

@Eddie

nd his writings on Biblical notions of nature are still among the very best ever written.

In your opinion. I note once again the complete lack of quotations.

@Eddie

And if you think that works several decades old are automatically inferior to more recent works…

No. Wow, every single exchange with you involves dismissing a handful of subject changes, straw men, and distractions.

@Eddie

I indicated that the passages you used from the Hebrew books did not establish the claim you made about “natural laws,” and I said why.

And I responded to that, and you haven’t replied to my points.

@Eddie

You have not responded with a learned discussion of Hebrew terminology or with any systematic account of the Old Testament’s understanding of nature.

I don’t need to while you’re not even addressing my basic arguments.

@Eddie

I also indicated that you had not provided passage in this history of Christian thought where it was said that origins were to be preferentially explained by natural causes

I actually quoted a couple of examples of historical Christian thinkers saying that natural causes should be first sought for every phenomemon.

@Eddie

The conception of “nature” (physis) is Greek, not Hebraic. T

Maybe you mean “The Greeks had a different concept of nature to the Hebrews”.

@Eddie

You can’t have “natural laws” until you combine the notion of “nature” with the notion of "law,’ and for that you need both Greek and Hebrew components.

More unsubstantiated statements.

@Eddie

his has long been conceded by historians of ideas and historians of religion and historians of philosophy. You need to study the idea of physis more carefully. Klein’s essay, “The Nature of Nature” might help.

More handwaving, and name dropping. Just quote them, if you’ve read them.

@Eddie

You need to study the idea of physis more carefully.

Which idea of phusis? Plato’s? Aristotle’s? Archimedes’? The Epicurean concept of phusis? The Stoic concept of phusis? Do you know the difference?

@Eddie

And no, I am not suggesting that Klein would directly endorse any particular argument I am making here.

Don’t worry, this does not surprise me.

@Eddie

I also indicated that you omitted to mention Aquinas’s direct denial of natural-cause origin for man and the higher animals.

Because it isn’t relevant. Last time I looked, Aquinas wasn’t a Second Temple Period Jew. He was a medieval Catholic theologian attempting to marry Catholic theology with Aristotle. He was also a great big blunderer, and a very naughty man. Who cares what he thought about this?

@Relates

That is not what we are talking about and the moths were the example used in your article.

Of course it’s what you were talking about. You said specifically “Sounds like: If an organism survives and thrives, it is fit. If it doesn’t, it isn’t fit”.

@Relates

To cut the discussion off on this point is a cop out.

Oh I’m not cutting it off by any means. I’m simply telling you it’s not going to proceed until you understand the topic and you’ve read what you’re shown.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Relates

Mathematical modeling lets us know that something is going on, but does not tell us how or why. The problem exists when science allows the models take the place of thinking and testing, because it thinks that it already knows how and why, or it does not really want to know how and why. Pride goes before the fall.

That’s all well and good … but it sounds like you would complain to Isaac Newton that all his research on mass and gravity is “… just circular numbers” … “you say something is heavy, Isaac, but all you do is give me its weight in pounds and grams … around and around … but what IS IT REALLY?”

We quantity “fitness” by a quantitative analysis of survival, longevity and offspring.

THAT’s what FITNESS IS!

And these raw numbers gain their meaning by COMPARING how one sub-genotype of a gene pool compares to OTHER subtypes.

I think you have come to the end of your road, Roger.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

You are evading the biological issue about Adam and Eve. The columnists at BioLogos, some with Ph.D.s in biology (and you’ve admitted your’e not a biologist yourself), tell us that “the science is in” regarding Adam and Eve, i.e., it is no longer possible for a scientifically educated person to believe that there was a first human couple, specially created.

Um, no. They tell us it is no longer possible for a scientifically educated person to believe the first human couple was created only around six thousand years ago, or that the entire human species descended from a single human couple six thousand years ago, or that Adam and Eve (if they existed six thousand years ago as a special creation), were the first humans. And I agree with all that. I believe humans already existed at the time of Adam and Eve, and had existed for a long time. I do not believe all humans are descended directly from Adam and Eve.

@Eddie

Your remark about Aquinas and Second Temple Jews is a bogus defense. You know that your article went far beyond Second Temple Judaism.

It’s not a bogus defense. I showed that the view I was documenting had roots in Second Temple Period Judaism, and extended right through medieval Christianity to the modern era. So citing Aquinas is totally irrelevant. Quoting Aquinas doesn’t address the Second Temple Period evidence I presented, or the medieval evidence.

@Eddie

You cited many medieval Christian discussions. But in doing so, you left out Aquinas. This is interesting, as his view did not fit in with your own.

Of course. I was providing evidence for my argument. When providing evidence for an argument, you need to quote sources which support your argument. Your statement here doesn’t make any sense at all. I can’t quote Aquinas as evidence for my argument, because he isn’t evidence for my argument.

@Eddie

As for Aristotle, you cannot blame Aristotle for Aquinas’s defense of supernatural acts of God in creation!

And the straw men are still coming thick and fast. I didn’t blame Aristotle for Aquinas’s defense of supernatural acts of God in creation. I can see why people just don’t bother engaging with you anymore.

[quote=“Eddie, post:170, topic:4380”]
You did imply that an older theological work would likely be of less value…[/quote]

No, I said specifically that I didn’t need nineteenth century theologians. I did not say anything like “works several decades old are automatically inferior to more recent works”. Remember, that was your original statement.

@Eddie

But how do you know that the best work on a subject is not 70 or 80 or 100 years old?

Remember that university thing?

@Eddie

…yes, I do know the difference between different treatments of physis.

Great, then I’m sure you can answer my question. But wait, you didn’t. Oh well.

@Eddie

I mean that, strictly speaking, the Hebrew did not have the concept of “nature” at all. They of course had an idea of heaven and earth, and notions of animals and plants and stars. But they did not conceptualize any of that under a conception such as “nature,” which is actually philosophically quite a loaded word.

They didn’t conceptualize any of that under a conception of nature precisely as we think of it in Western modern categories. The word isn’t loaded unless you load it with exclusively Western categories, which is what you’re doing.

But they did have a concept of nature, and phusis. They differentiated between magical and non-magical, between divine and non-divine, between mortal and immortal, between eternal and non-eternal, between miraculous and non-miraculous. They had a concept of nature which is relevant to the article I wrote.

@Eddie

No, I am not going to feed you isolated quotations from authors…

I’m not asking you to. I’m asking you to provide quotations from them in sufficient context to support what you’re saying. You know, like we learned at university.

[Sy_Garte]

[quote=“Jonathan_Burke, post:171, topic:4380”]
Um, no. They tell us it is no longer possible for a scientifically educated person to believe the first human couple was created only around six thousand years ago, or that the entire human species descended from a single human couple six thousand years ago, or that Adam and Eve (if they existed six thousand years ago as a special creation), were the first humans. And I agree with all that. I believe humans already existed at the time of Adam and Eve, and had existed for a long time. I do not believe all humans are descended directly from Adam and Eve.

I agree completely with your comment on Adam and Eve, and I am one of the biologists Eddie is talking about (I think). Special creation of Adam is not addressed by science, as is the case for the resurrection, the creation of the universe etc. The biology simply tells us (not inconsistently with Genesis by some interpretation) all things, you mention in the quote.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

But Dennis and others here (and in ASA venues, etc.) have said that there cannot have been original human couple at any time, not merely just 6,000 years ago. They have said that an original ancestral couple, if it existed, could not have existed as recently even as 150,000 years ago (the date sometimes given for anatomically modern humans). They have said that if there was an original couple ancestral to all human beings, that couple, based on population genetics calculations, would have to have lived something like 4 to 9 million years ago; and that means the couple would not have been human at all. So if there was an original “couple” ancestral to all humans, that couple could not have been Adam and Eve.

I have agreed with this.

@Eddie

onathan Burke is simply wrong to say that the BioLogos position is concerned only to reject the 6,000-year date.

I didn’t say that. I pointed out they are also concerned with the concept of universal ancestry from an original couple, which they rightly say is not possible.

@Eddie

The best that BioLogos can offer, regarding a fully human Adam and Eve, is the “adoption” idea, i.e., that there already existed a population of anatomically human hominids, and that Adam and Eve, one couple out of that population, were by some means brought into a special relationship with God. That couple had descendants, but there would have been other anatomically modern human beings living on the planet along with the descendants of Adam and Eve.

This is virtually identical to what I have said.

@Eddie

So what happened to those other physically human beings?

Perhaps this will help.

[Sy_Garte]

@Eddie

which goes beyond rejecting that timeframe to rejecting the idea of a first human couple, period. My statement of the BioLogos position was more accurate than your statement quoted just above, because I was much more explicit that BioLogos did not accept an original human couple, ancestral to all humans, at any date, no matter how long ago

Eddie

I disagree. You forgot to quote the last two sentences of Jon’s comment, namely

@Jonathan_Burke

I believe humans already existed at the time of Adam and Eve, and had existed for a long time. I do not believe all humans are descended directly from Adam and Eve.

So although he did mention 6000 years three times, its clear from the end that meant what I said he meant (and what he says he meant) namely the exact same position as Biologos, myself, Dick Fisher, and many others who have written on this issue.

What we need to do is disentangle the special creation of Adam and Eve from the wrong idea that they were the first Homo Sapiens on the planet and that all humans are biologically descended from one couple. That is simply impossible if molecular genetics is real. And it isnt necessary in order to believe that God either chose or even created two people with whom to have a relationship, and breathed souls into them.

How did this spread, you ask? Biologically and/or culturally, depending on one’s theological point of view. As to who bears the image of God, again that is for the theologians to answer, but they should not have a problem with the idea of Adam and Eve not being the first and only human couple.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

Note that all three of the possibilities you mentioned are tied to the 6,000-year timeframe. That is why I said you had misrepresented the BioLogos position, which goes beyond rejecting that timeframe to rejecting the idea of a first human couple, period.

Sy has helpfully answered this for me, even while I was writing the same thing.

@Eddie

I wrote of the BioLogos view: “it is no longer possible for a scientifically educated person to believe that there was a first human couple, specially created.” That is in fact the view put forward by all the biologically-trained columnists here who have written about Adam and Eve.

You need to explain why Sy has contradicted this.

@Sy_Garte

What we need to do is disentangle the special creation of Adam and Eve from the wrong idea that they were the first Homo Sapiens on the planet and that all humans are biologically descended from one couple. That is simply impossible if molecular genetics is real. And it isnt necessary to believe that God either chose or even created two people with whom to have a relationship, and breathed souls into them.

Yes.

@Sy_Garte

As to who bears the image of God, again that is for the theologians to answer, but they should not have a problem with the idea of Adam and Eve not being the first and only human couple.

There’s some very good evidence in the Bible itself that image-likeness is a matter of appointment, not simply shape (yes the words for “image” and “likeness” by themselves have a different sense, but together they form the image-likeness which is greater than the sum of its parts). Otherwise there would be no point in Seth being identified as in the image-likeness of Adam, if that’s just how everyone naturally turned out.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

I had offered a characterization of the Biologos teaching. Burke’s answer started out with, “Um, no.” That is a statement that I had mischaracterized the BioLogos teaching.

And so you had. And I pointed it out, and so did Sy.

@Eddie

BioLogos is in effect demanding that Western theology undertake a major reinterpretation of the Fall and original sin, at the bidding of modern population geneticists. So science tells what is possible, and theology is expected to adjust.

Galileo posed the same problem. Christianity got over it. We’ve been here before. People used to think heliocentrism was really scary and would be the end of Christianity. It wasn’t. And frankly, the view of the fall and original sin which fits with the scientific facts, is not a novelty; you can find it in Second Temple Period Judaism and early Christian commentary.

[Sy_Garte]

@Eddie

Regarding your last sentence

I will admit that that sentence does indeed come across as science centric, which is not how I feel. I have read your comments, and Jon Garvey’s comments on this issue for many years, and I have become convinced that we scientists could use a bit more humility in this regard (Coincidentally, I am speaking on this very issue at my Church tomorrow).

BUT… (I know you heard that coming), I am not sure that mainstream theology is all that united on Paul’s meaning. I have heard theologian Roy Clouser (dont have reference handy, sorry) say that Romans could have a very different interpretation.

But the real issue you raise, which I agree is an absolutely critical one for the Science and Faith discussion that is the heart of everything we do here, is what should be the relationship between science and faith when they appear to be at odds. It remains my (and I would speak for all CEs here) that God has spoken one truth to us with many voices, or in the more common usage, many books. The Book of Works (the name of my blog, not coincidentally) or what we learn from the scientific study of nature cannot contradict God’s revealed truth through Scripture and theological scholarship. That’s why I say “when they appear to be at odds”. When this happens, as it does frequently, either we got the science wrong, (as in the origin of the universe) or the theology has made a mistake.

Should we work at fitting the theology into the science?. To some extent yes, we should, but always with caution, because science changes, as we are seeing with evolutionary theory. I have seen some liberal theologians even jump the gun and quote very controversial “science” (like the nonsense from Sam Harris) as if its “gospel truth”, That is a mistake. Whenever I hear the awful phase “Science says” I shudder.

It is much harder to fit science into theology, since that is simply not acceptable to scientists. The most that we scientists can do is pursue the truth without prejudice, and report it. I am not worried that this truth will destroy Faith or undermine Christianity, because I believe in God and Jesus Christ, and I do not believe they can be undermined. All the scientific advances I have seen have gone in the opposite direction, to strengthen the cause of faith. In the end (whenever that will be) I believe that science and theology will be in agreement on all parts of the truth of nature. That convergence has been happening for centuries, and is accelerating now.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

It would not be appropriate for theologians to just scrap an 1800-year-old tradition just because a temporary agreement regarding some mathematical calculations in population genetics says that a religious doctrine cannot be true.

Remember that Galileo thing? Yeah, that. The fact is that historically, mainstream theologians don’t have a fantastic track record of determining truth from the Bible. Meanwhile, we have plenty of historical cases of scientists being accurate about the universe and theologians being totally wrong. It would be great to learn from this.

[GJDS]

You seem to conflate “fundamentalism” with sound theology - this is incorrect. At no point was a core theological doctrine changed or overthrown by Galileo - this constant harking back to such incidents (which are more to do with what Greek philosophers taught as well as primitive views on the earth and sun etc) is a wrong argument to put forward. In fact, this argument works more against science, as the history of science is saturated with overthrown theories.

The universe, as you put it, was better understood due to the efforts of Christian scientist, who were probably more committed to central theological teachings than many current scientists - this outlook, that science is right and theology is often wrong, promotes the conflict while perpetuating historical errors…

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@GJDS

You seem to conflate “fundamentalism” with sound theology - this is incorrect.

It’s not sound theology to conclude that the earth orbits the sun.

@GJDS

At no point was a core theological doctrine changed or overthrown by Galileo…

Well, in your opinion. In Galileo’s day it was considered totally destructive to the faith, and completely undermining the inspiration of Scripture. But you’ve grown up being taught it’s no big deal, so you’re used to it. This is a case of creeping normalcy.

@GJDS

• this constant harking back to such incidents (which are more to do with what Greek philosophers taught as well as primitive views on the earth and sun etc) is a wrong argument to put forward.

No, this is simply learning from history. What we learn is that when theologians shout and scream and stamp their feet in defiance of scientific discoveries, we should be very careful about aligning ourselves with the theologians. This is not about a conflict between science and Scripture, it’s about bad theologians overstepping their area of expertise and making idiots of themselves. How many times in the modern era has a robust scientific conclusion on the basis of peer reviewed evidence, been overturned by a theologian armed with nothing but a Bible? Now how many times have the claims of theologians been dashed to pieces on the rocks of scientific evidence?

@GJDS

In fact, this argument works more against science, as the history of science is saturated with overthrown theories.

You’re getting close to the Fundamentalist argument in that image.

@GJDS

The universe, as you put it, was better understood due to the efforts of Christian scientist, who were probably more committed to central theological teachings than many current scientists -

If you read the article I wrote, with which I opened this thread, you’ll find me agreeing with that.

[GJDS]

I have yet to read of a theology of the earth rotating around the sun - it is this type of nonsense that feeds ignorant debate. People (including theologians) accepted the prevailing views (which were articulated by Greek thinking) -this is obviously different to discussing the Trinity, or salvation, or God as the creator of heaven and earth. By making the ‘earth as the centre’ sound like theology, you are now asking us to believe that it was central to faith - the destructive aspect was the way established interests (both clergy and non-clergy) used such Greek teachings to manipulate the uneducated. The Bible says, “Heaven is God’s throne and the earth His footstool” - yet even now this nonsense about theology as the sun rotating about the earth, is peddled by people such as you. The undermining was that of those who used Greek philosophy as authoritative, and tried to make that part of the Bible. I have grown up reading through history critically, while you seem to live on pointless assumptions.

Point out significant (not US self proclaimed preachers) theologians who, as you colourful say, shout and scream and stamp their feet against scientific discoveries. I am a scientists and I am staggered by such juvenile language from you.

Anyone, be they theologians or scientists, who step outside of their areas of expertise, are in danger of making fools of themselves. I find it odd that you would focus the way you do on theology, as if it is the enemy of science. I have quoted Heller, just as one example of work which is in harmony with science and theology - in this example, Heller is quick to defer to Thomas on theology (although I think Heller is a priest and should have a good theological understanding) while showing great expertise in his area of theoretical physics.

So provide a list of the many times theologians’ claims who you say, were dashed to pieces on you rocks of science!

As for theories of science overthrown as a ‘Fundamentalist argument’ - wow. How much of science and its history do you understand? Going by this response, I would guess - very little.

Your arguments have been weak on a number of fronts - the most serious is you lack of understanding of nature instead of ‘natural laws’, and your strange take on established theology. I hasten to add that both theology and science are done by human beings, and we are prone to err, so I am not advocating any area is free from error - but your opinions do not appear to be thought through or expressed with the required clarity for an article on this site.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@GJDS

By making the ‘earth as the centre’ sound like theology, you are now asking us to believe that it was central to faith…

No, I am saying heliocentrism was claimed to be destructive to faith. Specifically, it was claimed by theologians to be destructive to faith.

@GJDS

• the destructive aspect was the way established interests (both clergy and non-clergy) used such Greek teachings to manipulate the uneducated.

No, the destructive aspect was the way theologians thought that the Bible taught those same Greek teachings. And we can forgive them for doing so, because every time they looked in the Bible they found the same kind of language which the Greeks used to talk about geocentrism. They never found any language in the Bible which contradicted geocentrism, and they never found any which taught heliocentrism.

@GJDS

Anyone, be they theologians or scientists, who step outside of their areas of expertise, are in danger of making fools of themselves.

I quite agree. But scientists tend to be far more aware of this; theologians, much less so.

@GJDS

I find it odd that you would focus the way you do on theology, as if it is the enemy of science.

I don’t believe theology is the enemy of science. I am simply pointing out a fact highly relevant to the purpose of this website, which is that scientific progress has frequently been resisted by theologians wrongly crying heresy.

@GJDS

So provide a list of the many times theologians’ claims who you say, were dashed to pieces on you rocks of science!

Shall we start with all the theologians who resisted heliocentrism? All the theologians who resisted the deep age of the earth as discovered by geologists? All the theologians who resisted the geological proof that the Genesis flood was not global? All the theologians who continue to resist the modern evolutionary synthesis? Take your pick.

[GJDS]

@Jonathan_Burke

Shall we start with all the theologians

Since you won’t name names and state the theology that you rely for your claim, I will not bring up names. I will, however, say that almost every major theologian making up the Patristic writings spend almost all of his writing discussing God as creator of heaven and earth, and when theories or philosophies current amongst the Greeks were mentioned, they were always discussed as schools of thought, some ridiculed, and others perhaps entertained by some Christians. At no point were such statements provided as Christian theology.

I recall Calvin (and some other notables from the Protestant tradition), who made comments on discussions of their time, who again emphasised the theology of God the creator.

Your areas (heliocentric, deep age, Genesis flood, and endless arguments revolving about creationism and evolution) have their genesis in the USA and as far as I am aware, have never made any significant impression on Orthodoxy, or any mainstream Christian tradition that I have read about.

Resistance to your modern evolutionary synthesis is prominent amongst scientists, and significant theologians appear to sit on the sidelines, like many of us, waiting to see if any dust will settle soon.

So again I ask you to name major theological figures in Christianity who conform to your conflict-riddled model of the faith-science discussion.