Theistic Evolution ~ what specifically is it?

[lucaspa]

The idea of the cosmos always existing is not new,

This is different. When you say "cosmos" I am meaning the physical universe. What we see around us. In Ekpyrotic the physical universe we see around us is finite, but the 5 D 'brane is not.

There is no reason why an eternal creator could not be eternally creating.

That is different. That is basically theistic evolution: creatio continuo.

The big problem I see in you description is eternal and uncaused. Obviously an uncaused universe is incompatible with a creator, but what is the basis for saying it is uncaused?

When you trace the chain of cause and effect back, you must inevitably get to what is called "First Cause". Some uncaused Cause that sets the whole thing running. For Aquinas, God was this First Cause, which is why he could have an infinitely old physical universe. Remember, does the existence of God have a cause? No. Instead, God causes the physical universe we are in.

But in ekpyrotic, the 5 D 'brane takes the place of First Cause. Like God, it is uncaused and eternal. Causes within the 5 D 'brane generate our physical universe.

Who is to say there is not a cause for the eternal ‘brane universe, outside the universe itself.

There doesn't need to be one, just like God doesn't need a cause. Exactly the same prinicple.

For our modern understanding, a being cannot be God unless it creates the universe we are in. Anything less and it is just a very powerful mortal being, not God. We may admire the being, we may listen to its wisdom, etc. but I submit that we could not view it as God. In Ekpyrotic, God does not create our universe. We are not able to worship a 5 dimension 'brane.

 

[lucaspa]

I guess you have a valid point if you are referring to "fundamentalism" as the movement started with The Fundamentals. But the creationists I deal with in my everyday life and on this forum haven't the foggiest notion what higher criticism is and wouldn't recognize The Fundamentals if it was staring them in the face.

Irrelevant. The idea is there whether they realize it or not. As some examples, militant atheists use the phrase "science verifies and unless yo can verify God then God doesn't exist". They have never heard of Positivism or the Vienna Circle. But that idea is Positivism nonetheless. So Positivism is a living force within atheism. Fundamentalism is a living, and growing, force in Christianity.

Or take politics. The rank and file political conservatives who say "Obama is a socialist" haven't the foggiest notion who first stated that or even, from my experience, what socialism is. But they repeat the idea anyway.

I strongly think that, in order to counter the fundamentalists today, you need to know what the idea is. That helps you find the counter arguments.

I've got two questions:

1. What specifically (and briefly!) do you think the role of the Bible would be in the ideal Christian life?

What Paul said in 2 Tim 3:16 -- a theological guide. It is "useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right."

When Paul said those words he was speaking of theology, not science. The Bible is a guide to theological truth. So we read it for the theological messages it can tell us.

Ideally, we should read the Bible with the knowledge of the time in which that particular text was written: what was the society, the politics, the economics, and the theology of the time? We should read it first as the people of the time understood it. Once we have that meaning, then we can start looking to see if there are meanings applicable to our time.

2. What is the best way to communicate your answer to Q1 to a creationist?

I'm still looking for that one.

 

[lucaspa]

The concept of "causality" outside of the strictures of space/time(s) (whether in a singular universe, a chain of branes, or whatever) does not obtain. God did not "cause" the universe--God created the universe, and there is a very important difference. Causality implies that originating causes can be determined as necessary conditions for the effects in question.

To apply such reasoning to God is to reduce the eternal, divine being to the level of materialism whereby God can be understood as the necessary, material condition for all that is. This is not what Christian theology means by creation ex nihilo, and I think it is a very important concept to grasp.

God is postulated as the "necessary condition" for the effect -- the existence of the universe. We are not talking about "all that is". All that is includes God, doesn't it? So we are only talking about the existence of the physical universe. That doesn't reduce God to a level of materialism, because God is outside the physical universe. Also, the concept that God sustains the universe is "the necessary condition". If God stops willing the universe to exist, then it stops existing. That is standard Christian theology.

I think what is throwing this is your insertion of the word "material". I see no reason for you to insert that word. It looks like that what you want, instead, is that God is the "supernatural condition for all that is".

Now, there are other candidates out there for "the necessary condition" for the physical universe that is not God. We have the classic case in science where we have multiple competing hypotheses and no way to eliminate all but one. Some of the hypotheses don't look to be falsifiable.

Ekpyrotic is falsifiable by the gravity waves, which is why I mention it as the possible candidate to falsify deity. It doesn't look like that is going to happen, because String Theory itself (on which ekpyrotic is based) is being falsified.

 

[depthdeception]

God is postulated as the "necessary condition" for the effect -- the existence of the universe.

No, this is not a philosophically defensible position. My entire point of clarifying causality is that causal conditions for effects must be deduced from within the same domain that the effects occur, and even then the fact that "necessity" obtains in such a deduction is much open to debate (and quite illusory, IMO). Moreover, in the very suggestion that that God is the necessary condition for the universe, one could make a very good argument that such a conclusion, in effect, makes the existence of the universe itself necessary to the existence of God whereby God might be understood as the necessary cause thereof.

We are not talking about "all that is". All that is includes God, doesn't it?

I don't think this is necessary conclusion. By utilizing the notion of "is," one must immediately draw conceptual distinctions between that which God is conceived to be and that which the universe is conceived to be. If God is part of the same conceptual "is" of which the universe is composed, then there remains little by way of distinguishing how God "is" different from that which "is not" God. In a sense, God "is," but concomitantly the creative act of God is the coming into being of that which is "is not" God.

So we are only talking about the existence of the physical universe.

...of which we cannot logically posit a cause "other than" that which belongs to the same domain. One can make a religious assertion that God has "created" the universe; however, philosophically, the meaningfulness of "causality" cannot be imported to this statement without introducing a fundamental materialism to the nature and being of God.

That doesn't reduce God to a level of materialism, because God is outside the physical universe.

This very statement entirely proves my point. God is not "outside" the physical universe. The universe, linguistically and philosophically speaking, is what "is." The "is" of God must then be understood in distinction ("is not"), not proximal relation (linguistic or otherwise), to the universe.

Also, the concept that God sustains the universe is "the necessary condition". If God stops willing the universe to exist, then it stops existing. That is standard Christian theology.

I'm not questioning the place of the will and creative activity of God in the heart of Christian theology. What I'm challenging is the unnecessary and completely inappropriate introduction of materialistic thinking to the same.

I think what is throwing this is your insertion of the word "material". I see no reason for you to insert that word. It looks like that what you want, instead, is that God is the "supernatural condition for all that is".

No, the I use the concept of materialism very deliberately, because the language you have utilized to describe the relationship of God to the creation of the universe inevitably leads to a materialist conception of God. Moreover, saying that God is the "supernatural condition for all that is" is equally unfortunate (and frankly wrong), for it attempts to presume causality across domains (both linguistic and conceptual) that are philosophically impossible to bridge.

Ekpyrotic is falsifiable by the gravity waves, which is why I mention it as the possible candidate to falsify deity. It doesn't look like that is going to happen, because String Theory itself (on which ekpyrotic is based) is being falsified.

The only deity that could possibly be falsified is one that is conceived of in materialist terms. As long as such concepts are kept out of Christian theology (which is what I'm proposing), no finding of science--speculative or otherwise--can overturn the same.

 

[shernren]

When you trace the chain of cause and effect back, you must inevitably get to what is called "First Cause". Some uncaused Cause that sets the whole thing running.

Yahoo, academic theology!

I have a counter-example for you. Suppose that God decides (per impossibile?) that the universe shall not have any existence subsequent to 8:12pm (GMT), 12th February 2012.

Now, the event of the universe's non-existence is an effect with a clear cause. However, it is obviously meaningless to attempt to ascribe any temporal ordering to this cause-and-effect relationship, since there is nothing within the universe that is capable of causing the universe itself to not-exist, nor is there anything after this end-point which can be caused by this non-existence.

I guess the question then is this. Suppose we posit instead that "the universe exists at 8:12pm GMT 12th February 2012" is an effect. What then is the cause of this effect?

Is the cause "the universe exists at 8:11pm GMT 12th February 2012"?
Or is the cause "God wills the universe to exist at 8:12pm GMT 12th February 2012"?

If the former, then clearly only a universe with a temporal beginning can include a transcendent creator in its chain of causation. (Nevertheless, one then has to ask about the causation of the initial moment of the universe - what is the cause of "The universe begins"? Isn't it "God begins the universe"? And thus is there a problem with the causation of this particular event being essentially different to the causation of all particular events subsequent to it?)

If the latter, then there is no problem with a universe with infinite temporal extent being created (since, even though this universe has an infinite number of temporally-marked events, they are all caused by a Creator). However one then has to contend in some sense with the possible capriciousness of this Creator: without additional theology (i.e. the idea that God is in some sense committed to the universe) there is ultimately no assurance whatsoever of the naturalism that is so necessary for scientific endeavor.

What Paul said in 2 Tim 3:16 -- a theological guide. It is "useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right."

When Paul said those words he was speaking of theology, not science. The Bible is a guide to theological truth. So we read it for the theological messages it can tell us.

Ideally, we should read the Bible with the knowledge of the time in which that particular text was written: what was the society, the politics, the economics, and the theology of the time? We should read it first as the people of the time understood it. Once we have that meaning, then we can start looking to see if there are meanings applicable to our time.

So we fundamentally agree on the sphere of application of the Bible, then. That's good to know.

But what is the best framework within which to understand the creationists' desire to have the Bible over-reaching its authority? I am not convinced that "idolatry" is an accurate or helpful framework for understanding the creationist mistake. I say this for two reasons: firstly, it is unnecessarily antagonistic, and if there is another accurate way of stating the problem without essentially calling creationists pagans I would very much like to couch the discussion in these terms.

The second reason (one that does not bow to man's approval!) is that the content of the Bible is indeed authorized (if, perhaps, not "authored" in the usual sense of the word) by God - and it is authorized in a way that most idols (money, sex, power, Baal, etc.) are not. My issue with couching the problem as "idolatry" is: it suggests that the solution is to completely deny any authorization for the Bible to speak down to us as a divine text judging sinful humanity. Idols are best subjugated, if not discarded altogether and burned, and to suggest that creationism is an idolatry of the Bible is to suggest that the solution is to subjugate the Bible. That is why I asked you what the proper place of the Bible is, and why I was gratified to see you answer in the way that you have.

 

[depthdeception]

I have a counter-example for you. Suppose that God decides (per impossibile?) that the universe shall not have any existence subsequent to 8:12pm (GMT), 12th February 2012.

Now, the event of the universe's non-existence is an effect with a clear cause. However, it is obviously meaningless to attempt to ascribe any temporal ordering to this cause-and-effect relationship, since there is nothing within the universe that is capable of causing the universe itself to not-exist, nor is there anything after this end-point which can be caused by this non-existence.

The "non-existence" of the universe cannot be considered an "effect" with a cause [or even an "effect"], for the very basis of determining--and, in fact, talking about--causality is an assumption of changes between like states (and even this causal relationship is philosophically tenuous at best).

For the universe to cease to exist would be more than it simply blowing up--it would encompass a complete undoing (or more accurately, a "never doing") of the ontology of the universe that would presumably extend even to divine memory. How, then, could it be possible to speak of causality in such a scenario, as the establishment of the "chain" from the universe existing to it not-existing would require that the universe, in fact, exists, a proposition completely undercut by the "effect" which we are trying to tie to an impossible causal state (the universe existing).

In the same way, if the universe does not exist, how can a causal chain be established for the coming into being of its existence? Going from ex nihilo to creation is not a change in states, as if a meaningful correlation can be understood and established between the proposed cause and effect. Rather, we are talking about the very coming-into-being of something that does not otherwise exist; in other words, the universe does not go from "non-being" to "being," as if non-being can be understood as an equivalent or understandable state. No, the universe simply "is," and our only theological answer is that God mysteriously created--NOT caused--it.

Language, of course, does not lend any help in these examples, for it's easy for us to talk about "non-existence", even though the very naming of it entirely denies the usefulness of the concept we are attempting to capture through language.

(Nevertheless, one then has to ask about the causation of the initial moment of the universe - what is the cause of "The universe begins"? Isn't it "God begins the universe"? And thus is there a problem with the causation of this particular event being essentially different to the causation of all particular events subsequent to it?)

Besides the general philosophical issues with causality in general, there is no problem because the "beginning" of the universe (which is a self-contradiction, anyway) simply cannot be meaningfully spoken of within a causal framework. The moment we start talking about the "beginning" of the universe, we have betrayed the philosophical fragility of causality itself, and any conclusions at which we arrive will be necessarily incapable of describing God's relationship to the universe in any way but that of a fundamental philosophical materialism.

I know, of course, that such an end is not your aim--however, the language that we use for these issues inevitably leads there if determining causality is the ultimate goal.

 

[depthdeception]

Sorry my language is science rather than philosophy so I realised when I was writing I was probably struggling with terminology. Probably concepts too. When you say causality does not obtain, do you mean not at all, or just not in that sense? I was trying to express the idea of a chain of causality within the branes that could be infinite, God isn't simply the first part of the chain. First cause is a problematic concept in an infinite system, and even messier if time is not linear as it is in our universe. But while God is not a cause within the causality of the branes, the whole system exists because God created it. Cause in a very different sense but still the 'because', the reason it is.

Sorry, Assyrian, missed this one!

When I said that causality does not obtain, I meant that the fundamental conception of causality is wholly incapable of being applied to discussions of the creative acts of God in the universe.

You mention that "the whole system exists because God created it....cause in a very different sense, but still the 'because,' the reason it is..." I guess my question is why this question is necessary.

From my perspective, trying to get at the answers of mechanism in re: the universe's existence is not terrifically helpful. It leads to wildly varying philosophical, theological, and scientific answers, and each perspective does the best it can to provide a convincing argument--even though the entire project is doomed because the question "why does this all exist" is entirely unanswerable.

This is why I advocate that we speak of the divine act of creation as God "creating," NOT "causing" the universe. When we speak of God's creative act, our focus is shifted from the subjectivities and temporalities in which we are all mired (e.g., trying to philosophize our way back to "before" it all began) and transcends to attempt to think about who/what God is and what God's purposes are in creation. This, after all, is what the biblical creation narratives are all about--framing the nature and purposes of God in universal history in the form of a creation epic. To me, this is a much more proactive way in which to think about origins, rather than wasting time on questions that ultimately have no answers.

 

[lucaspa]

My entire point of clarifying causality is that causal conditions for effects must be deduced from within the same domain that the effects occur,

Isn't that what happens in regard to God causing the physical universe? The hypothesis was made from within the physical universe. IOW, there is nothing within the universe that will account for the existence of the universe. This led to 2 initial philosophical hypotheses:
1. The universe has existed forever.
2. Deity caused/created the universe.

one could make a very good argument that such a conclusion, in effect, makes the existence of the universe itself necessary to the existence of God

I'm afraid you are going to have to try to make that argument, becasue e this looks like non sequitor to me. Why would the universe be necessary to the existence of God? Let me illustrate by another example: humans are necessary for the existence of computers (we create computers), but computers are not at all necessary to the existence of humans.

 

[lucaspa]

Yahoo, academic theology!

I have a counter-example for you. Suppose that God decides (per impossibile?) that the universe shall not have any existence subsequent to 8:12pm (GMT), 12th February 2012.

Welcome to eschatology. Both Jesus and Paul thought this was going to happen sometime before 80 AD.

Now, the event of the universe's non-existence is an effect with a clear cause. However, it is obviously meaningless to attempt to ascribe any temporal ordering to this cause-and-effect relationship, since there is nothing within the universe that is capable of causing the universe itself to not-exist, nor is there anything after this end-point which can be caused by this non-existence.

1. There is a temporal ordering, isn't there? After all, we have a. God deciding, b. God acting, and then c. universe ceasing to exist.

2. I don't think the cause and effect chain requires that the causes be within the universe. After all, ekpyrotic says that the cause of the destruction of our universe will be a 'brane that is not part of our 4 dimensional 'brane.

3. God closing the universe obviously ends the cause and effect chain, so your last point is somewhat irrelevant, isn't it?

I guess the question then is this. Suppose we posit instead that "the universe exists at 8:12pm GMT 12th February 2012" is an effect. What then is the cause of this effect?

The events that happen on that day (rain, sunshine, etc.) all have causes that can be traced back and back and back until you get to a First Cause. Right?

Right now, science can trace that cause and effect back to the singularity of the Big Bang. What then is the cause of the Big Bang? THERE you get to First Cause. An uncaused Cause that starts the universe going.

Or is the cause "God wills the universe to exist at 8:12pm GMT 12th February 2012"?

That is part of standard Christian theology. The universe ceases to exist if God ceases to will it to exist. That becomes the supernatural component of the cause. What we have been talking about up to this point is the material component of the cause. But that chain of material causes and effect traces back to First Cause.

If the former, then clearly only a universe with a temporal beginning can include a transcendent creator in its chain of causation.

True. Which is why Aristotle's always existing universe and Hawking's No Boundary Proposal eliminate God (which is why each of them are popular with atheists); the universe has no temporal beginning.

(Nevertheless, one then has to ask about the causation of the initial moment of the universe - what is the cause of "The universe begins"? Isn't it "God begins the universe"? And thus is there a problem with the causation of this particular event being essentially different to the causation of all particular events subsequent to it?)

Right. Instead of sustaining the universe, we have God acting directly as First Cause.

If the latter, then there is no problem with a universe with infinite temporal extent being created (since, even though this universe has an infinite number of temporally-marked events, they are all caused by a Creator).

This doesn't work, unfortunately. At this point, the idea that you need a supernatural component of material causes becomes untenable. If the universe always existed and always will exist, it become self-contained and loses the requirement for a Creator.

there is ultimately no assurance whatsoever of the naturalism that is so necessary for scientific endeavor.

There are 2 types of naturalism: methodological and philosophical. Methodological naturalism is not so much necessaryfor science as forced onto science. Methodological naturalism arises from how we do experiments and limits science to looking only at material causes. That supernatural component of causes that you stated above: "God wills the universe to exist ". Science is simply incapable of testing that statement. We simply cannot design the experiment -- because we can't make the appropriate controls -- to determine whether God wills the universe to exist or wills any of the processes found by science to happen.

So yes, we have no assurance that philosophical naturalism is true. This is the prime statement of faith necessary for atheism: natural happens without God.

But what is the best framework within which to understand the creationists' desire to have the Bible over-reaching its authority? I am not convinced that "idolatry" is an accurate or helpful framework for understanding the creationist mistake.

Let's look at the historical framework. The end result is indeed idolatry, but it didn't start out that way. Creationism/Fundamentalism arose out of sola scriptura. Initially in the Protestant Reformation the idea of sola scriptura was that you did not need any intercessor (like a priest) to find God. Each person had his/her own personal relationship with God. The role of scripture was to help you find God and that personal relationship. All you needed was scripture -- not a priest -- sola scriptura. And so we find Luther and others translating the Bible from Latin to the various spoken languages: so people can read scripture for themselves without requiring a priest to translate.

For sola scriptura to work, you need to trust scripture as theologically accurate. John Calvin's Commentaries specifically said the Bible was theologically accurate but not scientifically accurate. However, 100 years after his death the Westminster Confession for the reformed tradition he founded declared that the Bible was "inerrant". Not just theologically accurate but completely accurate. In the later half of the 19th century Higher Criticism really got going, and this called into question the traditional authorship of the Pentateuch, the gospels, and some of the letters in the NT. If Moses did not write the Pentateuch and disciples did not write the gospels, then that raised the question (in some people's minds) that those might not be accurate. I hypothesize that these people did not have a personal relationship with God. If you don't have that relationship, then scripture seems to be all you have. If that is not accurate, then you have no basis (in their minds) to believe.

So from the period 1880 to 1910, we get a new religion -- Fundamentalism -- founded on the doctrine that the Bible is inerrant and literal. It becomes all about the Bible. You can see that when Fundies say scripture is "the Word of God". You and I know that "Word" is Jesus. But now a literal Bible is the Word. Antagonistic or not, this is now bibliolatry and false idol worship. I suggest you read this essay:
http://www.newreformation.org/heresy3.htm

There are 2 other strands at work here.
1. In focussing on a literal Bible, Fundies are ignoring the Christian tradition that God has two books: scripture and Creation.
2. In insisting on a literal Bible, Fundies are also making a tragic logical mistake: they are tying untestable statements of ultimate meaning -- God exists, God created, salvation, et. -- to very testable statements about how God created. This works OK as long as the testable statements are supported. But when the testable statements are shown to be false, then, because of the bad logic, the untestable statements of ultimate meaning also come into question. We can see this very clearly with the creationist argument that if there is no literal Adam, there is no literal Fall, there is no inherited sin, there is no need of Jesus, and finally there is no salvation. The statement of ultimate meaning is salvation. This is untestable. But by tying it to a literal Adam the Fundies/creationists not only make it testable, but also falsifiable. When the evidence shows no literal Adam, they get really upset because they (mistakenly) see salvation being falsified.

The second reason (one that does not bow to man's approval!) is that the content of the Bible is indeed authorized (if, perhaps, not "authored" in the usual sense of the word) by God - and it is authorized in a way that most idols (money, sex, power, Baal, etc.) are not. My issue with couching the problem as "idolatry" is: it suggests that the solution is to completely deny any authorization for the Bible to speak down to us as a divine text judging sinful humanity.

I would say this is a non-sequitor. Remember 2 Tim. 3:16. What does Paul say one of the things scripture is good for? For instruction in righteousness! IOW, as providing means to judge sinful humanity.

Remember, the problem is not the Bible itself. "judging sinful humanity" is part of theology. We maintain the Bible is theologically accurate. It is actually Fundamentalism with its inerrant and literal doctrine that endangers the theological accuracy of the Bible. It is one reason this false idol must be resisted.

to suggest that creationism is an idolatry of the Bible is to suggest that the solution is to subjugate the Bible. That is why I asked you what the proper place of the Bible is, and why I was gratified to see you answer in the way that you have.

To say "creationism is bibliolatry" is a bit of shorthand. To be precise and completely accurate, it is insisting on a literal, inerrant interpretation of the Bible that is false idol worship. It is that interpretation that leads to bibliolatry as you worship that particular interpretation as a god.

 

[shernren]

I hope I don't appear to be inordinately difficult with you, lucaspa. I agree with you that the creationism of today is a wrong-headed way of handling both the Bible and science.

Indeed, I have argued before that creationists talk and think they way they do precisely because they have sold out to the very scientism that they decry in others. Because their generation has learned to see truth as scientific, they have also learned to see the Bible, being truthful, as scientific. No wonder then that the ID movement craves the very kind of scientific credibility that they label as being hegemonic and intolerant.

So I would agree with your claim:

To say "creationism is bibliolatry" is a bit of shorthand. To be precise and completely accurate, it is insisting on a literal, inerrant interpretation of the Bible that is false idol worship. It is that interpretation that leads to bibliolatry as you worship that particular interpretation as a god.

At least, I would say that that is a valid formulation of the problem, with all its requisite insights.

But to say that creationists are in the grip of a particular bible interpretation says very little about what, in particular, the problem is. After all, we all have our own pet interpretations that subconsciously filter what the Bible says. I have Calvinist friends to whom Hebrews is essentially a black book, and a staunchly Arminian pastor who seems never to have read Romans 9-11. I could call them bibliolaters too, and that would be accurate. I freely confess to being controlled by prior ideas when I read the Bible, too.

So that makes me a bibliolater. But I'm not a creationist.

The issue I have with making "bibliolatry" out to be the fundamental problem with creationism is that it's not a focused accusation. It's not an accusation that will make creationists sit up and realize that they've been wrong. It certainly wasn't what changed my mind about creationism. The science did it for me, and then I saw that the Bible itself - even "taken literally" - had more than enough to indict many things creationists say.

So I'm looking for a framework close enough to the standard creationist one, but different enough to show how wrong it is. I've tried quoting Bible verses at creationists (that doesn't go down very well) and using scientific evidence, or focusing on foundational philosophy-of-science type issues. Maybe I'm on a fool's quest.

 

[lucaspa]

Indeed, I have argued before that creationists talk and think they way they do precisely because they have sold out to the very scientism that they decry in others. Because their generation has learned to see truth as scientific, they have also learned to see the Bible, being truthful, as scientific.

First, creationism doesn't belong to one generation. Second, much of creationism is a denial of science. It's the opposite of scientism. I would agree that one thread in creationism states that the accuracy of the Bible can be "proved" by science. However, an even stronger thread in creationism states that science and the Bible are in conflict and the Bible should be given absolute precedence. It is the opposite viewpoint of the first one quoted in my signature. This thread came first. The claim that the Bible is "scientific" came much later in creationist thought.

No wonder then that the ID movement craves the very kind of scientific credibility that they label as being hegemonic and intolerant.

It's only "hegmonic and intolerant" when it is against your favorite theory. Of course, IDers forget that ID was the accepted scientific theory for 300 years or so.

I have Calvinist friends to whom Hebrews is essentially a black book, and a staunchly Arminian pastor who seems never to have read Romans 9-11. I could call them bibliolaters too, and that would be accurate.

I disagree. Here you have people who are not worshipping the Bible. In fact, it appears that they are ignoring some parts of scripture that goes against their particular theological theory. Bibliolatry is making the Bible, or a literal interpretaion, into the object of worship.

But to say that creationists are in the grip of a particular bible interpretation says very little about what, in particular, the problem is.

It's not that they have a particular interpretation, but that they have made the Bible, and particularly that interpretation, into their god. When you and I have our pet interpretations, we place God above our interpretation. We don't refer to the Bible as the "Word of God" and we don't defend the Bible against evidence from God's Creation. We may disagree about what Paul meant when he said women should be silent in church, but that does not have us worship another god instead of God.

Creationists/Biblical literalists have made a god that they place above God.

After all, we all have our own pet interpretations that subconsciously filter what the Bible says. I freely confess to being controlled by prior ideas when I read the Bible, too.

So that makes me a bibliolater.

No, it doesn't. When you face the question the jailor asked of Paul -- "what must I do to be saved?" -- you answer "believe in God and Jesus", right? You do not answer "I would have to say the word of God is absolute truth and . . . Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the Savior of the world." Look at what is wrong with this. But this is just what Morris Chapman, president of the SBC Executive Committee, answered to that question.

The issue I have with making "bibliolatry" out to be the fundamental problem with creationism is that it's not a focused accusation. It's not an accusation that will make creationists sit up and realize that they've been wrong.

I disagree as to the first. It is very focussed. Creationism has gone theologically astray. At the least it is heresy. At most it is violation of the 1st Commandment. If violation of the 1st Commandment won't get a Christian to "sit up" and at least take notice and get them to rethink, then I don't think anything will.

It certainly wasn't what changed my mind about creationism. The science did it for me, and then I saw that the Bible itself - even "taken literally" - had more than enough to indict many things creationists say.

That's because you had not yet slipped into bibliolatry. I strongly urge you to read Hiram Berry's essay in Is God a Creationist? Edited by Roland Frye. If you can't get it, I scanned most of it in.

In sinking to bibliolatry, what creationists have done (briefly) is tie untestable statements of ultimate meaning -- God created, God exists, Jesus saves -- to very testable statements about how God created (creationism). When those testable statements are shown to be false, then the untestable statements that really matter come into question.

Most creationists will resist any and all scientific data. The real bibliolators will also resist many of the indictments you use. You acknowledge my own experience when you said: "I've tried quoting Bible verses at creationists (that doesn't go down very well) and using scientific evidence, or focusing on foundational philosophy-of-science type issues."

IMO, you need to 1) reassure them at every step that giving up creationism does not mean giving up Christianity and 2) get them to confront the awful consequences of creationism/Biblical literalism. Those consequences include false idol worship, which in turn does imperil (in their minds) their salvation.

And then you have to realize that there are a few of those lost sheep that are so enamored of their god that they won't listen to anything. You just have to keep trying remembering that, for every poster, there are 10 lurkers. And you hope to at least prevent the lurkers from following the path of creationism/Fundamentalism to heresy and false idol worship.

If you don't keep trying, Shernren, I think you can kiss Christianity goodbye.

 

[MattLangley]

Theistic Evolution

Belief that some sort of higher power (like God) exists and that evolution is a valid scientific explanation.

In Short:

Belief in God and evolution.

Anything beyond that get's into an individuals belief. TEs don't even have to be Christians for example. Just like Theists spawn various religions.