Am I Therefore...

[MrSnow]

I was reading a post in the Creationism forum (called "Atheistic Science and Theology", about TE and whether it's "liberal theology" in disguise) and it caused me to think of something.

I hold a rock (or a ball, or marble, or whatever) in my hand and drop it. It falls to the ground. If I say that it fell to the ground due to gravitational forces between the rock and the earth, am I therefore espousing an atheist or liberal view point because I didn't say that God's hand grabbed the rock and pulled it to the earth?

I post this question here so as to not derail the original thread.

 

[elcapitan]

I was reading a post in the Creationism forum (called "Atheistic Science and Theology", about TE and whether it's "liberal theology" in disguise) and it caused me to think of something.

I hold a rock (or a ball, or marble, or whatever) in my hand and drop it. It falls to the ground. If I say that it fell to the ground due to gravitational forces between the rock and the earth, am I therefore espousing an atheist or liberal view point because I didn't say that God's hand grabbed the rock and pulled it to the earth?

I post this question here so as to not derail the original thread.

That's basic framework of the argument, as far as I can tell. The guy who started that thread had this to say:

Secular science is synonymous with atheistic materialism and Secular Humanism. It is essentially religious in it's scope and atheistic in it's substantive reasoning

It's just another "God of the gaps" argument: if it can't be explained, then God did it. If you find a naturalistic explanation (i.e. secular science), it's atheistic because it's taking power away from God.

Evolution certainly is not the first scientific discovery to be ridiculed for "taking power away from God". When germ theory and vaccines first came out, many clergymen denounced them on the grounds that it took away God's power to punish us with disease.

 

[theIdi0t]

I was reading a post in the Creationism forum (called "Atheistic Science and Theology", about TE and whether it's "liberal theology" in disguise) and it caused me to think of something.

I think the creationist opposition to evolution, is really just their opposition to Atheism and Liberal theology in disguise. If literalist really wanted to stretch scripture to squeeze in evolution into there literalistic reading of Genesis they could do it, B. B. Warfield did and he was a literalist and a fundamentalist, not to mention the principle of Princeton Seminary. I would think it would be much easier to do, then those attempts to see the "edges of the earth" as the infinite edges of a circle. They are just wounded creatures.

If they didn't associate a mythical view of Genesis with liberals, and evolution with atheist, there wouldn't even be a debate, particularly when most of the individuals in this forum are conservative, and very few are atheist.

All you need is some opposition to fundamentalism, for believers to think twice about being associated with that brand of Christianity, and with as much bad publicity they've been getting these days, it's only a matter of time. At that point believers are left questioning those positions that they and the fundamentalist have in common, and out the window goes creationism. I'm sure creationist like Kent Hovind, and those financial scandals over there at AIG aren't helping either.

 

[elcapitan]

I think the creationist opposition to evolution, is really just their opposition to Atheism and Liberal theology in disguise. If literalist really wanted to stretch scripture to squeeze in evolution into there literalistic reading of Genesis they could do it, B. B. Warfield did and he was a literalist and a fundamentalist, not to mention the principle of Princeton Seminary. I would think it would be much easier to do, then those attempts to see the "edges of the earth" as the infinite edges of a circle. They are just wounded creatures.

If they didn't associate a mythical view of Genesis with liberals, and evolution with atheist, there wouldn't even be a debate, particularly when most of the individuals in this forum are conservative, and very few are atheist.

All you need is some opposition to fundamentalism, for believers to think twice about being associated with that brand of Christianity, and with as much bad publicity they've been getting these days, it's only a matter of time. At that point believers are left questioning those positions that they and the fundamentalist have in common, and out the window goes creationism. I'm sure creationist like Kent Hovind, and those financial scandals over there at AIG aren't helping either.

It think it's a bit deeper than that. If you assume that a literal interpretation of the Bible is intrinsically true, then anything that contradicts it is false a priori. Athiesm, liberal Christianity and evolution, then, must be false for this reason.

You can't convince a person who believes that to question their beliefs, because they honestly believe that such questioning would be going away from truth. The literalists are going to have to decide for themselves to get rid of creationism.

 

[busterdog]

I was reading a post in the Creationism forum (called "Atheistic Science and Theology", about TE and whether it's "liberal theology" in disguise) and it caused me to think of something.

I hold a rock (or a ball, or marble, or whatever) in my hand and drop it. It falls to the ground. If I say that it fell to the ground due to gravitational forces between the rock and the earth, am I therefore espousing an atheist or liberal view point because I didn't say that God's hand grabbed the rock and pulled it to the earth?

I post this question here so as to not derail the original thread.

Yes.

Well, no.

And my car started twice today with no trouble. I should have made a prayer of thanksgiving, but didn't.

Obviously God made gravity. He gets the credit. I am not sure where you are going with this?

Bad acts don't make someone not a Christian, nor do they make one an atheist. No one would push the point to say otherwise.

If you were to deny that God made gravity, that would be something else. Then you would be expousing atheist doctrine.

 

[busterdog]

It think it's a bit deeper than that. If you assume that a literal interpretation of the Bible is intrinsically true, then anything that contradicts it is false a priori. Athiesm, liberal Christianity and evolution, then, must be false for this reason.

That's right. But the OP was about something quite different.

 

[gluadys]

If you were to deny that God made gravity, that would be something else. Then you would be expousing atheist doctrine.

So, if you were to deny that God made evolution, that would be something else. Then you would be espousing atheist doctrine.


I can go along with that.

 

[MrSnow]

Yes.

Well, no.

And my car started twice today with no trouble. I should have made a prayer of thanksgiving, but didn't.

Obviously God made gravity. He gets the credit. I am not sure where you are going with this?

Bad acts don't make someone not a Christian, nor do they make one an atheist. No one would push the point to say otherwise.

If you were to deny that God made gravity, that would be something else. Then you would be expousing atheist doctrine.

My point is that TE's are labeled as liberal at best, or on the verge of athiests at (hopefully) worst. And that is based on them accepting evolution. The assertion is that to believe that evolution is a natural process through which God caused all livings things to develop is to be a liberal/quasi-atheist. That is based on the assumption that either God made all living things as they are today, or God was not involved and they came about by chance. That either God is sovereign for one or He does not exist for the other.

Regardless of whether evolution is true or not, I cannot see how that can make one a liberal/quasi-atheist. If it is a natural process, then evolution is a liberal as gravity.

 

[busterdog]

My point is that TE's are labeled as liberal at best, or on the verge of athiests at (hopefully) worst. And that is based on them accepting evolution. The assertion is that to believe that evolution is a natural process through which God caused all livings things to develop is to be a liberal/quasi-atheist. That is based on the assumption that either God made all living things as they are today, or God was not involved and they came about by chance. That either God is sovereign for one or He does not exist for the other.

Regardless of whether evolution is true or not, I cannot see how that can make one a liberal/quasi-atheist. If it is a natural process, then evolution is a liberal as gravity.

I think most YECs here do accept a form of post-fall evolution, but not the creation of new genomes or species. And you and Glaudys rightly attribute that process to the Lord.

Mark has spent a lot of time dealing with genetics. He really feels that he has been lied to and that the motivation for it was a desire to be rid of God in this particular science and everything to do with our origins. Who exactly he finds fault with I don't know. That is one issue.

Another issue has to do with consistency. Obviously both camps can use the same tactic. But there is an argument to be made that denying the power of God to make the earth in six days is not far removed from denying God the power to raise the dead. I am not asking that anyone concede the point, I am just trying to show how the argument is made -- and I have made it myself.

Most YECs here recognize that the confession of Jesus as the resurrected Lord can be made by those who are evolutionists.

That being said, Mark worries a great deal about the taint of Darwinism and its motivations. It has been used profitably by atheists and the TE camp shares some of the logic of the atheists. I worry about that too. There is a case to be made, but few if any YECs want to pitch the TEs over the side.

Nor do the YECs suggest that they are beyond being mistakenly allied with error or atheism on other areas. We just think we are closer to the truth on this one issue.

 

[Fed]

Another issue has to do with consistency. Obviously both camps can use the same tactic. But there is an argument to be made that denying the power of God to make the earth in six days is not far removed from denying God the power to raise the dead. I am not asking that anyone concede the point, I am just trying to show how the argument is made -- and I have made it myself.

I've never heard a TE deny the power of God to make the earth in six days.

 

[metherion]

That's right. I have not yet a TE who believes God is unable to have made the earth in 6 days. We just believe that He didn't do so. But He most certainly could have.

There is a HUGE difference between can't and didn't. We don't attribute can't to God. We attribute didn't.

Metherion

 

[busterdog]

That's right. I have not yet a TE who believes God is unable to have made the earth in 6 days. We just believe that He didn't do so. But He most certainly could have.

\

That's a good thing

With all that power, could he also have made your rocks and stars merely look old, yet be young?

 

[busterdog]

It's just another "God of the gaps" argument: if it can't be explained, then God did it. If you find a naturalistic explanation (i.e. secular science), it's atheistic because it's taking power away from God.

Is that really the God of the gaps argument?

In this crowd, I think no one disputes that God is responsible for what is known and what is unknown. TO that extent, everyone here would agree with God of the gaps.

At least in this crowd, God of the gaps means that scripture is a better explanation for what is unknown to science. It also means that where your "knowledge" presumes to overcome gaps, you are forgetting to give credit where credit is due.

With the atheist crowd, then indeed, you have to ask, if you can't explain it, why is your faith in human discovery any more sound, provable or reasonable that simply doing what the TEs do: giving credit to God as creator of amazing things.

Quite frankly, with Metherion's admission above, I understand that you don't like how YECs use "God of the gaps", ie, it must be kept secret from kids in order to banish forever from public schools the horror, taint and suffering of overbearing and oppressive human behavior. Apparently, it fogs up too many scientific nobel beer goggles. But, the basic idea of giving credit to the creator for amazing things is hard to disagree about. As far as the core belief that is God of the gaps, how is there a better recitation than this? And if I were wrong, why does Job go to such lengths to make exactly this God of the gaps argument?

Evolution certainly is not the first scientific discovery to be ridiculed for "taking power away from God". When germ theory and vaccines first came out, many clergymen denounced them on the grounds that it took away God's power to punish us with disease.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If they did, we would be rehashing of hundreds of years of the cluelessness of science.

 

[gluadys]

Is that really the God of the gaps argument?

Yes, I think el capitan has it right. Certainly many creationists treat natural explanations as atheistic explanations. So only what has no natural explanation yet is identified with God.

That's bad theology, but it is typical of many creationist postings that I have responded to.

At least in this crowd, God of the gaps means that scripture is a better explanation for what is unknown to science.

For creationists, perhaps. The problem is they don't even limit it to what is unknown to science, but also want to replace what is known to science by scriptural explanations---according, of course, to their own interpretation of scripture.

 

[The Lady Kate]

With all that power, could he also have made your rocks and stars merely look old, yet be young?

Does God have the power to make something look deceptively like what it's not?

He could, but a god that would want to do such a thing doesn't sound like the God I've read about in the Bible... what do you think?

 

[metherion]

He most certainly could have.

But then He'd be a liar since He said we'd know Him by His creation. And if He lies or decieves in His creation then He is a liar.

The Biblical God is not a liar.

Metherion

 

[busterdog]

Does God have the power to make something look deceptively like what it's not?

He could, but a god that would want to do such a thing doesn't sound like the God I've read about in the Bible... what do you think?

I think that if you follow this line of reasoning, then God is a prolific liar.

Lots of people have looked at creation as confirmation of a flood and a young earth. So, trying to reason out what God thinks based upon how people react is a pretty faulty approach. What makes the mostly Western academics the last 100 years so special? Why is this very small crowd the test of what is or what is not a lie?

As a YEC, I prefer going by what He said.

Isn't this all a little ironic? God speaks plainly, but we reject it. Then we say, in order to make God not a liar, we say He must have intended that what is communicated through rocks and stars to a small group of people in a limited time period of history is what is to be taken seriously. And having a human definition of what God's "highest" form of communication should be, by that standard, He is not a liar. I find that extremely ironic.

 

[elcapitan]

Is that really the God of the gaps argument?

It is if you regard "God did it" as an intrinsically better explanation than a naturalistic one.

In this crowd, I think no one disputes that God is responsible for what is known and what is unknown. TO that extent, everyone here would agree with God of the gaps.

At least in this crowd, God of the gaps means that scripture is a better explanation for what is unknown to science. It also means that where your "knowledge" presumes to overcome gaps, you are forgetting to give credit where credit is due.

With the atheist crowd, then indeed, you have to ask, if you can't explain it, why is your faith in human discovery any more sound, provable or reasonable that simply doing what the TEs do: giving credit to God as creator of amazing things.

Quite frankly, with Metherion's admission above, I understand that you don't like how YECs use "God of the gaps", ie, it must be kept secret from kids in order to banish forever from public schools the horror, taint and suffering of overbearing and oppressive human behavior. Apparently, it fogs up too many scientific nobel beer goggles. But, the basic idea of giving credit to the creator for amazing things is hard to disagree about. As far as the core belief that is God of the gaps, how is there a better recitation than this? And if I were wrong, why does Job go to such lengths to make exactly this God of the gaps argument?

This had nothing to do with giving credit to God. Science doesn't care about giving credit for how the universe works, it just tries to find how it works. Science leaves open the possibility that God made the natural laws. You can give credit to God for making the natural laws, but that doesn't help explain how the natural laws work or give you any new knowledge.

For example, you can believe that God created the natural laws of gravity, or you can believe that God makes objects move that just happens to be consistent to what natural laws would predict (so far). Maybe the former view sounds too deistic to you, but if you take the latter view, no true scientific discovery is possible. In the latter view, any apparent natural laws are just God's arbitrary actions that happen to be consistent and He could change them at any time if he wanted.
If you really think that God can change the apparent natural laws whenever he wants, try jumping off a bridge and see if he makes an exception in gravity for you.

 

[elcapitan]

What makes the mostly Western academics the last 100 years so special?

Maybe it's that they weren't burned at the stake or tortured by an inquisitor.

As a YEC, I prefer going by what He said.

You mean what fallible men wrote down, which was then copied, recopied, and translated by more fallible men.

God doesn't have to be a liar if men are.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Why would he make them look young? So the bad exegesis of 6dYEC can be right?

God also had the power to begin his Scriptures with a beautiful power meditating on his power and glory, on the singularity of his Godhed and the goodness of creation.... and he did!

There's no biblical warrant to ascribe deceit to God's character in the quest to save the Genesis narrative, since the Genesis narrative isn't a Baconian text of axioms like early twentieth century fundamentalism supposed it to be.