If the universe is <10,000 old....

[Smidlee]

Also the sun does literally move. It's by this movement (relatived to Earth) we can tell if there are planets at other stars.

 

[NGC 6712]

The only real difference between YEC and evolutionists I can see is YEC believes miracles happen instantly while naturalist believes miracles takes millions of years. It's so easy to hide you evidence in billions and millions of years since man can't begin to comprehend that amount of time.

No that is not the difference. The YEC's (certainly groups like ICR and AIG) want the penny and the cake. If they left things at an appeal to miracle then that would be that. But they don't. They try to bend (i.e. twist and lie about) science to back their position. They know appeal to miracles left and right doesn't pass muster these days so they want to have their worldview backed by science even thought the science says no.

 

[Smidlee]

No that is not the difference. The YEC's (certainly groups like ICR and AIG) want the penny and the cake. If they left things at an appeal to miracle then that would be that. But they don't. They try to bend (i.e. twist and lie about) science to back their position. They know appeal to miracles left and right doesn't pass muster these days so they want to have their worldview backed by science even thought the science says no.

Science has it's place. For example since we know snowflakes are a direct result of nature laws which can be repeated then snowflakes are not a miracle. Also since some people tries to use science to declare truth (especially when dealing with origins) it's useful to know exactly what are the facts and what's just story telling.

 

[Keachian]

Okay, but now your backtracking from your original point, which was that we should stay away from YECism, because we are in danger of looking foolish. If you believe that YEC is a problematic interpretation, fine. Problem is, you guys never lead with that. In fact most OEC's admit that YEC is the straightforward reading of text, but science forces them to reconsider. Check out these testimonies.

I don't believe I am backing down from my original point, that of being knowledgable about differing worldviews so that we don't look foolish when we speak. And I do quite often lead with my belief that the YEC is not only problematic but a straight out incoherent reading and the idea that this is because of science is flat out false, my opinion is based on what I consider a reading based on the differences between our literal reading and an original literal reading.

So you see, for most OEC's it really is an issue of science and not the text. They want to be in the mainstream of scientific thought. I personally could care less about that. So did a very bombastic YEC back in the 1600s named Galileo.

Except as Assyrian is plainly showing imo Galileo based his conclusions on science and not the text. I base my understanding on a wholistic understanding of the text rather than on a horse-blinders approach where we discard everything but the text.

You lost me on this one. Maybe you can share some more background.

The Bible says specifically in Psalm 139 that God creates each new life in their mother's womb, if we take the same stand that YEC take on Genesis 1 here we should disregard all science relating to the development of a baby.

 

[Smidlee]

The Bible says specifically in Psalm 139 that God creates each new life in their mother's womb, if we take the same stand that YEC take on Genesis 1 here we should disregard all science relating to the development of a baby.

Jesus did claimed to be the Life, Truth,etc. I still believe Life is the handy work of God but now literally the creation, including life, is under a curse and slowly falling apart. The creation is groaning to be renew by God because it's going "downhill"; the opposite direction that evolution needs.

 

[Keachian]

Jesus did claimed to be the Life, Truth,etc. I still believe Life is the handy work of God but now literally the creation, including life, is under a curse and slowly falling apart. The creation is groaning to be renew by God because it's going "downhill"; the opposite direction that evolution needs.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure you haven't addressed my point instead making a false accusation over what evolution states, that is unless you are agreeing with me that you should, in which case maybe you should read my signature

 

[Assyrian]

I'm looking at all the effort you put into this, but I think you missed the point I as making, as none of this addresses it.

You were claiming people were a lot more open to heliocentrism with theologians split 50:50 on the issue, which simply wasn't the case. You also claimed there was very little interest in the issue among theologians, that wasn't the case either. There is a Creationist distortion of the Galileo affair, creationist websites want to paint themselves as the heroic persecuted Galileo, instead of being the people who reject science because of their interpretation of scripture. If we are to learn anything from the church's mistakes in the past, we need to know what happened.

The fact is, there were spits in theological opinions during Galileo's time. It's just a fact, that many considered his ideas. Yes, there were dogmatic geocentrists. I admitted that, just as there are dogmatic TE's today, who are siding with mainstream science. This is very interesting history, but I don't see how it addresses my point.

Yes of course there was a range of opinions among theologians, at least until the inquisition and the index made them toe the line. But it wasn't people being dogmatic about science who forbade Galileo to teach heliocentrism, put Copernicus's book on the Index, or condemned Galileo for heresy. That was people who were dogmatic about dogma. The people who condemned Galileo condemned him for heresy because his science contradicted their interpretation of scripture. And there are people in the church today making the same mistake, rejecting science because it doesn't agree with the way they interpret the bible.

Ouch, this unfortunately is the god of the gaps error that atheists will rip you to shreds over. There are natural explanations for the wine at the wedding Jesus attended. There are natural explanations for the origin of the fish and bread and the gathering of 5000. All kinds of natural explanations can be cited for just about every miracle, including the Resurrection. The swoon theory, is perhaps the most popular.

Yes, I do realize many of the church today are falling for it, and yes, they did back in the 1600s as well. It's still error.

No, not God of the gap, because neither TE not tradition theology see natural processes excluding God, God still working when he works through providence. Not just the 1600s, it has always been the church's understanding of the miraculous. YECs believe the same thing and pray to the Father for their daily bread, the bread may have come through natural process, and human agencies, but it is still God providing. The problem is they also believe a contradictory idea that if life evolved through natural processes, that means God is excluded.

Now people have tried to explain the resurrect with ideas like the swoon theory, but does the swoon theory fit the description in scripture? With miracles in scripture where we have the testimony of scripture about what happened, we have to look at another factor, again one where TEs line up with traditional theology and YECs don't.

In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theological (1273).
​

As Augustine said about interpretations science shows are wrong:

And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion proposed by man in his ignorance.
Augustine the Literal Meaning of Genesis
​

Of course we do. We you tell your kids to sit still in the back seat of a car moving 65mph you're not speaking in metaphors. You're not telling them to still their minds on the freeway of life. You're literally telling them to sit still in reference to the cab of the car.

A sunrise is an instance when the sun rises in reference to the horizon. When you tell your friend heads up! are you speaking metaphorically? Are you saying, hey, keep your spirits lifted? No! You're saying point your head upward in reference to the land, so that you can avoid moving out of the way of that thing that's about to hit you.

All motion is space in relative. In fact, the only way to describe motion is if there are two objects, one for describing and one for reference. If there were only one object in space, there would be no way to describe its motion.

Motion in a straight line may be relative because there is no absolute frame of reference. Changes in velocity isn't relative, because change in velocity requires a force to change it. If nothing else, acceleration and deceleration mean your velocity has changed relative to you, what your velocity had been. The sun orbiting the earth is not equivalent to the earth rotating in orbit around the sun. For the sun to orbit the earth every day would requite the earth to have the gravitation attraction of a massive black hole. Saying the sun rises is not a literal description because it really is the earth moving. Telling you kids to stop moving may be in the frame of reference of the car, but it means they really were doing the moving about, using their own muscles to bounce themselves around the back of the car. Telling the sun to stop means it really was moving.

 

[Smidlee]

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure you haven't addressed my point instead making a false accusation over what evolution states, that is unless you are agreeing with me that you should, in which case maybe you should read my signature

Maybe I don't get your point. If I understand you right when my wife says she just baked me a cake should I reply " no, the oven baked the cake"? I personally have no problem with giving God credit for my birth. I could had been born in a different time with different parents. There is still a lot of mystery of life to think science has all the answers. Psalm 139 simply states that God knows everything about me (including things that can't be explained by science).

 

[Keachian]

Maybe I don't get your point. If I understand you right when my wife says she just baked me a cake should I reply " no, the oven baked the cake"? I personally have no problem with giving God credit for my birth. I could had been born in a different time with different parents. There is still a lot of mystery of life to think science has all the answers. Psalm 139 simply states that God knows everything about me (including things that can't be explained by science).

So, you'd take the same position I do on the subject, God makes us in our very being within and using our mother's womb/natural processes. So the question then is could not God have made everything through these so called natural processes?

 

[Calminian]

You were claiming people were a lot more open to heliocentrism with theologians split 50:50 on the issue, which simply wasn't the case. You also claimed there was very little interest in the issue among theologians, that wasn't the case either. There is a Creationist distortion of the Galileo affair, creationist websites want to paint themselves as the heroic persecuted Galileo, instead of being the people who reject science because of their interpretation of scripture. If we are to learn anything from the church's mistakes in the past, we need to know what happened.

Yes of course there was a range of opinions among theologians, at least until the inquisition and the index made them toe the line. But it wasn't people being dogmatic about science who forbade Galileo to teach heliocentrism, put Copernicus's book on the Index, or condemned Galileo for heresy. That was people who were dogmatic about dogma. The people who condemned Galileo condemned him for heresy because his science contradicted their interpretation of scripture. And there are people in the church today making the same mistake, rejecting science because it doesn't agree with the way they interpret the bible.

Again, the fact that there were theologians dogmatic about geocentrism is not in dispute. So I don't know what we're arguing about in that regard. Yes, there were dogmatic geocentrists just like their are dogmatic TEs which don't like any other view talked about. I'm simply saying there is relatively very little on the subject discussed. You take the whole of Luther, Calvin's writings, and perhaps just a fraction of a percent is spent on this issue. And when the mainstream view changed, you have virtually no resistance. It just died a very quick death.

Again, my theory is, that geocentrism constrained scripture badly, especially in the aspect of God revolving around man. It caused havoc for biblical theology.

No, not God of the gap, because neither TE not tradition theology see natural processes excluding God, God still working when he works through providence.

I don't think you quite understand the god of the gaps issue. All YECs believe that God upholds natural processes. But we are also theists in that we believe He also acts in special ways—miracles.

Turning the water into wine at Cana, is an example of a special act of God. Yet, there are natural explanations as well. Yet, there are also natural explanations for wine, which according to you are to be preferred. But this is error. A possible natural explanation does not disprove a miracle.

[/COLOR]

In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. ​

You quote Augustine as if he somehow embodies traditional christianity. And yet, he doesn't help your case at all. You do realize that Augustine believed creation to be an instantaneous miracle? IOW he didn't believe the universe was merely the result of natural processes. He also was a young earther believing the universe was only 10 thousand years old.

Now I don't agree with Augustine's theology in many areas, but is he really the best example you can come up with?​

 

[Calminian]

I don't believe I am backing down from my original point, that of being knowledgable about differing worldviews so that we don't look foolish when we speak. And I do quite often lead with my belief that the YEC is not only problematic but a straight out incoherent reading and the idea that this is because of science is flat out false, my opinion is based on what I consider a reading based on the differences between our literal reading and an original literal reading.

But how is blindly accepting the world view of naturalism, intelligent? When I speak to atheists I actually do start with the issue of world views, and explain to them that I am a theist. This is crucially important as theism is the belief that God created the world and intervenes in it from time to time. I then speak about the issue of presuppositions of science, particularly uniformitarianism which precludes a part of theism from their methodology. All science must adhere to methodological uniformitarianism—the belief that natural processes are constant and aren't added to.

Have you ever considered challenging the world view of an atheist? Instead, you're granting them deism, the idea that God created the world, and then left it alone. There's no scientific proof for this, yet you grant it to them without question. I would say, we need to educate them on basic theism. You'll be surprised how easily they grasp it.

Except as Assyrian is plainly showing imo Galileo based his conclusions on science and not the text. I base my understanding on a wholistic understanding of the text rather than on a horse-blinders approach where we discard everything but the text.

Galileo was a YEC, that did not feel threatened by geocentrism whatsoever.

The Bible says specifically in Psalm 139 that God creates each new life in their mother's womb, if we take the same stand that YEC take on Genesis 1 here we should disregard all science relating to the development of a baby.

This is a non sequitur, as all YECs have no problem with the idea that God upholds all natural law. And, for certain, we do not know all that entails the soul (nephesh). It's very possible there is a special act necessary in each conception as well.

 

[Keachian]

But how is blindly accepting the world view of naturalism, intelligent? When I speak to atheists I actually do start with the issue of world views, and explain to them that I am a theist. This is crucially important as theism is the belief that God created the world and intervenes in it from time to time.

God creating the world and intervening in it from time to time is to my mind a very deistic approach, my belief is that God is working at all times to uphold and sustain the universe.

Naturalism is not the same as what I believe, in fact I fervently deny naturalism. To say that anything can happen without God being in control denies the sovereignty of God and pleads to naturalism. To say anything less imo is to give foothold to the common accusation by atheists that we believe in a God of the gaps.

I then speak about the issue of presuppositions of science, particularly uniformitarianism which precludes a part of theism from their methodology. All science must adhere to methodological uniformitarianism&#8212;the belief that natural processes are constant and aren't added to.

It might just be me but I'm pretty sure that when you have a coherent and rational or suprarational deity then uniformitarianism flows from that as well.

Have you ever considered challenging the world view of an atheist? Instead, you're granting them deism, the idea that God created the world, and then left it alone.

Um, no, I am in no way espousing or presenting deism.

There's no scientific proof for this, yet you grant it to them without question. I would say, we need to educate them on basic theism. You'll be surprised how easily they grasp it.

Yes education on theism all round, I'd say that not just Atheists need it I run into creationists all the time that need to understand what theism is.

Galileo was a YEC, that did not feel threatened by geocentrism whatsoever.

Whether he was a YEC or not is beside the point of whether he was against the conservative Christian worldview of that time which was claimed to be scripturally based and yet now you discard it because you've been taught that it is wrong.

This is a non sequitur, as all YECs have no problem with the idea that God upholds all natural law. And, for certain, we do not know all that entails the soul (nephesh). It's very possible there is a special act necessary in each conception as well.

Actually I don't think it is a non sequitur, as I said above that to my mind to say that God is not involved in the whole of the process it to appeal to naturalism, which you most certainly just did even going as far as to state that there may be a "special" act to form a creature (nephesh) in its entirety, this is inconsistent to my mind, you have God letting things plod along aside from him and when he feels like it interferes. Rather than what the passage we're looking at says which is that God is entirely involved in the process and God makes us fearfully and wonderfully, there is this sense of the Joy of the Father creating and imbuing new life for his own glory and you want to knock that aside for "oh, he'll interfere at some point." All I can do is ask, are we reading the same scriptures?

 

[Calminian]

God creating the world and intervening in it from time to time is to my mind a very deistic approach, my belief is that God is working at all times to uphold and sustain the universe.

This is misstating or actually redefining deism. Deism is the idea that God's special acts in creation are limited to the initial creation. From there, His simple consistent upholding is all that takes place.

Again, all YEC's, and all christians believe God upholds natural law. That's not what constitutes the difference between deism and theism. You're simply redefining the terms.

Naturalism is not the same as what I believe, in fact I fervently deny naturalism. To say that anything can happen without God being in control denies the sovereignty of God and pleads to naturalism. To say anything less imo is to give foothold to the common accusation by atheists that we believe in a God of the gaps.

Well, actually you are a naturalist, as naturalism does not imply God is not in control. It merely implies uniformitarianism—that the laws of nature are never added to by God.

It might just be me but I'm pretty sure that when you have a coherent and rational or suprarational deity then uniformitarianism flows from that as well.

Yes, this is probably just you. To deny that God performs non-uniform miracles in the world, is indeed deism. I realize you believe that God upholds the natural laws, but this is still deism.

Um, no, I am in no way espousing or presenting deism.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Yes education on theism all round, I'd say that not just Atheists need it I run into creationists all the time that need to understand what theism is.

But it seems you've redefined it. You now say that uniformitarianism is theism. I suppose you can define terms any way you like, but it will cause havoc in conversations.

Whether he was a YEC or not is beside the point of whether he was against the conservative Christian worldview of that time which was claimed to be scripturally based and yet now you discard it because you've been taught that it is wrong.

There were many non-geocentrist theologians of that day, surprisingly. It was by no means a conservative view, but rather it was a view that lined up with modern science. And yet Galileo rejected it, and he was a conservative YEC christian.

As I said before, TEs are much closer to the geocentrists of that day in their thinking. They read the modern scientific view of the day into their theology. TEs are doing the very same thing.

BTW, here's Geisler's take on natural law vs. miracles. Since he's an OEC I thought maybe you'd receive this a little better.

Natural law is a description of the way God acts regularly in and through creation (Ps. 104:10–14), whereas a miracle is the way God acts on special occasions. So both miracles and natural law involve the activity of God. The difference is that natural law is the regular, repeatable way God acts, whereas a miracle is not. Natural law is the way God acts indirectly in and through the world he has made. By contrast, a miracle is the way God acts directly in his creation from time to time.​

 

[Keachian]

This is misstating or actually redefining deism. Deism is the idea that God's special acts in creation are limited to the initial creation. From there, His simple consistent upholding is all that takes place.

So where exactly did I deny that God doesn't do above ordinary things and sure I'll accept your definition of natural laws and we'll call the above ordinary/special acts stuff miracles. So where did I deny that God doesn't perform miracles?

Again, all YEC's, and all christians believe God upholds natural law. That's not what constitutes the difference between deism and theism. You're simply redefining the terms.

I think it's more that I don't like the term "natural laws" as especially in discussion with deists and atheists it can and does take on a different meaning.

Well, actually you are a naturalist, as naturalism does not imply God is not in control. It merely implies uniformitarianism—that the laws of nature are never added to by God.

Uniformitarianism is not tied to naturalism. Naturalism requires uniformitarianism as I believe theism with a rational God also does. However unlike theism naturalism denies the idea that there is a God while theism ultimately has to embrace it or it is no longer theism.

Yes, this is probably just you. To deny that God performs non-uniform miracles in the world, is indeed deism. I realize you believe that God upholds the natural laws, but this is still deism.

To me God upholding the laws is a miracle in itself, God is not just "hohum laws being upheld." but rather getting his hands dirty and doing things. On the other hand when I think of deism in its purest form my mind goes to this interuniversal creature that wades through the cosmic waters plopping universes behind.

But it seems you've redefined it. You now say that uniformitarianism is theism. I suppose you can define terms any way you like, but it will cause havoc in conversations.

When I say that people need to learn about theism I specifically mean that they need to learn about God's role not just as creator but as sustainer, I have come across creationists that don't believe God is sustainer. Whether they come away with uniformitarianism or not is a secondary issue I tie it more to the joint ideas that God is rational and theism, rather than either of the two.

There were many non-geocentrist theologians of that day, surprisingly. It was by no means a conservative view, but rather it was a view that lined up with modern science. And yet Galileo rejected it, and he was a conservative YEC christian.

I'd like to hear about these heliocentric theologians, name 3.

But anyway if you read Luther, Calvin, or any of the Catholic writers on it, they believe that they are reading the Bible literally and conservatively.

As I said before, TEs are much closer to the geocentrists of that day in their thinking. They read the modern scientific view of the day into their theology. TEs are doing the very same thing.

really? Since when did I do that? I look at the scriptures from an ANE point of view and since Genesis 1 does not deal with literal material creation but rather in many ways is the finality of Gods creative acts imbuing us with his image and consecrating and dwelling his temple (that is if it is historical at all) so regardless of what science ends up figuring out I'd happily "say oh God did it that way"

BTW, here's Geisler's take on natural law vs. miracles. Since he's an OEC I thought maybe you'd receive this a little better.

Natural law is a description of the way God acts regularly in and through creation (Ps. 104:10–14), whereas a miracle is the way God acts on special occasions. So both miracles and natural law involve the activity of God. The difference is that natural law is the regular, repeatable way God acts, whereas a miracle is not. Natural law is the way God acts indirectly in and through the world he has made. By contrast, a miracle is the way God acts directly in his creation from time to time.​

While to my understanding that's not the normal definition of natural Law, I may as well accept that as a fine definition.

 

[Calminian]

progmonk, not sure where this is going. We're going back and forth of the meaning of terms, which is never fun. I'm going with traditional meanings of terms, just for clear communication. I can assure you Geisler's definition is standard among christian theists.

Back to the issue, you are granting atheists their presupposition of uniformitarianism&#8212;the idea that uniform natural laws were at work and not added to by a deity or anything else in the creations process.

I don't do this. I try to explain theism to atheists, so they understand the issue of special acts of God (miracles). They read the text much like I do, and can see that the author is conveying special acts of God. I find that by doing this I have much more intelligent conversations with them. I feel you're stuck trying to force the text into saying something it is not, even in their eyes. They like that you agree with them on their presuppositions, but it doesn't convey to them a very high view of scripture.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Well, actually you are a naturalist, as naturalism does not imply God is not in control. It merely implies uniformitarianism—that the laws of nature are never added to by God.

No, progmonk isn't a naturalist, because he is assserting that God exists and is in control. Naturalism denies both.

Papias

 

[Calminian]

Cal wrote:



No, progmonk isn't a naturalist, because he is assserting that God exists and is in control. Naturalism denies both.

Papias

So you also deny that God upholds natural laws?

Naturalism is the idea, that the world only works via normal uniformitarian processes. Theistic naturists (deists) believe God upholds these laws. The atheist obviously does not.

I have to say, it looks like we're locked into a terms battle. Those never seem to go well.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:
So you also deny that God upholds natural laws?

No, I don't. I affirm that God upholds natural laws.

Naturalism is the idea, that the world only works via normal uniformitarian processes.

That's oversimplified. Please clarify what you mean. Philosophical naturalism is the idea that the supernatural does not exist.

That's different from methodological naturalism, which is the idea that in an experimental examination of the world, natural factors will be considered first.

Theistic naturists (deists) believe God upholds these laws.

A theistic naturist is someone who believes in God and chooses to not wear clothes when around other people. They have the normal wide range of views about the causes of natural laws. Theistic naturists may or may not be deists.

You probably mean "theistic naturalist". If so, you have to specify if you mean philosophical or methodological naturalism for the term to have any meaning. If "philosophical", then your term is a self contradiction, like "theistic atheist". If "methodological", then your term applies to many Christians, and certainly doesn't require them to be deists.

I have to say, it looks like we're locked into a terms battle. Those never seem to go well.

Yes. And this was you and progmonk's discussion anyway.

Papias

 

[Calminian]

That's different from methodological naturalism, which is the idea that in an experimental examination of the world, natural factors will be considered first.

Wow, we don't even agree on this term. Methodological naturalism is not the idea that natural factors are considered first. No no no. Science doesn't proclaim miracles when it is stumped. Anomalies stay in the unknown column until a reasonable natural explanation is arrived at. All answers in science must be natural, uniformitarian explanations.

A theistic naturist is someone who believes in God and chooses to not wear clothes when around other people. They have the normal wide range of views about the causes of natural laws. Theistic naturists may or may not be deists.

I have to give props for that one.

You probably mean "theistic naturalist". If so, you have to specify if you mean philosophical or methodological naturalism for the term to have any meaning. If "philosophical", then your term is a self contradiction, like "theistic atheist". If "methodological", then your term applies to many Christians, and certainly doesn't require them to be deists.

Theistic naturalists is my term for theistic evolutionists, since most go way beyond evolution, all the way into Big Bang Cosmology. The term seems to fit well. For they deny miraculous intervention in the creation process, relegating God's actions to strictly being prior to the BB.

Yes. And this was you and progmonk's discussion anyway.

That's quite alright. The more disagreement over terms the better. They make for nice long posts where every sentence comes into dispute. It makes for some very riveting reading.

 

[Johnnz]

I value the concept of a worldview. Michael Goheen summarises succinctly the modern paradigm that I see as behind the current exchange. This sort of bypasses the debate about meanings of specific terms which I see as a sunset of the bigger issue of one's worldview. He wrote:

An enormous shift took place as we moved into modernity. We can point to the Renaissance as the pivot for the rise of modernity. Modernity sought to break with the shackles of tradition, superstition, and religion that were characteristic of the medieval period. It turned to a humanism that was shaped in Greece and Rome. However, modernity which came to maturity in the Enlightenment, inherited and carried on the Christian notion of an overarching story and transcendent norms like justice, freedom, and truth, though it re-read it in its own discourse. It maintained a sense of meaningful progress and development toward justice, freedom, and truth but rejected the origin of both the story and the norms. An enormous amount of creative energy was expended in the modern period to provide an immanent basis for both the narrative and the norms. Human autonomy and reason could provide a foundation for justice, freedom, and truth. Hope was placed in science and technology to enable us to progress toward a more just society characterized by knowledge and liberty.

It was at the time of the Enlightenment that this commitment to human autonomy and reason reached it fullest expression. This was the result of at least two factors. The first was the tremendous success of the Newtonian physics. This seemed to be leading to agreement based in a common commitment to reason. The second was the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. These religious wars led to an increasing skepticism with respect to the assumption that society could be based on confessional unity grounded in the gospel. The turn was to reason to provide this common bond. People like Hugo Grotius sought a basis for public order in the concept of natural law based on a rationality universal to all people. Law, morals, politics, economics--the whole of public life--was reconstructed on the basis of what was universally human.

The problem we face today is that our gods have failed us. Since the story of modernity has been built on idolatry--I will return to this--they have failed to deliver on their promises. Today many point to growing poverty, a chronically imbalanced economy, the depletion of resources, the destruction of the environment, escalating militarization, growing social and psychological and social problems, and more, as proof that these stories are false. They cannot deliver the goods. There is growing skepticism and cynicism toward overarching stories. Thus we hear Lyotard's famous description of the defining feature of the postmodern condition as an "incredulity toward metanarratives." There is no overarching or transcendent story that will provide meaning and weave life together."

John
NZ