Dr. Paul Copan's Advice To A Future Seminarian
Dear _______,Okay, so far? In the comments afterward we read:
I was asked to pass along some “words of wisdom” in light of your graduation from PBA and new start in seminary. I’m certainly honored to do so, as it’s been a joy to have you as a student in my classes and to know you as a brother in Christ. You have stood out above your peers not only in your gifts, intellect, and eagerness to learn, but also—and most importantly—in your dedication to Christ. May you ever pursue Him with pure, simple devotion and cultivate your gifts for His glory.
As you go on for further pastoral training, continue to develop Christ-oriented, soul-shaping habits outside the classroom. Seminary students often neglect spiritual nourishment, falsely assuming that doing homework in biblical studies and theology will suffice. Meanwhile, their spirit shrivels or, at best, becomes stunted. So that the Word of Christ becomes deeply embedded within, make time for Scripture memorization, meditation, and prayer. I suggest reading through the Bible each year—in addition to specific book or topical study. Be a Scripture-saturated pastor and pilgrim! And set time aside for reading insightful, stimulating books to keep your horizons broadened and your mind sharp. Let these priorities become a pattern for life.
Seminary has been a snare to many a would-be pastor and theologian, pride perhaps being the greatest danger. A classic for all seminarians is Helmut Thielicke’s An Exercise for Young Theologians. In it he writes, “Truth seduces us very easily into a kind of joy of possession.” With increased knowledge comes greater temptation to pride. An important theme that has been something of a motto in my life is, “Walk humbly before God and others.” May it be yours as well. Personal experience has been a good instructor here: As I look back on my own pilgrimage, I have moved away from certain strongly-held theological positions during college and even seminary days (all within Christian orthodoxy). Be prepared for and open to such changes. Beyond this, the heart of theology is not the accumulation or systematization of propositions, but humble worship and wise living, at whose heart is love for God and others.
The Pastoral Epistles are a rich, vital resource to reflect on and to help guide you through the challenges of ministry—and there will be many. Paul told Timothy: “in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:12). During my early college years, I began to cultivate the habit of mental purity (adultery begins—or is stopped—in the mind). As someone has said, “You can’t help the first look, but the second one is yours.” Vigilantly guarding your thought-life will preserve you and (when you marry) will also be a precious gift to your wife.
Other “words of wisdom”—without much elaboration—are these: Be a good listener. Don’t burn bridges. Make every effort to relate to people from different cultures, walks of life, and socio-economic backgrounds. Give the benefit of the doubt to others as much as possible. Don’t be quick to judge, recognizing that “those people” strongly resemble you (and me) in all the weaknesses and frailties that come with our condition (Heb. 5:2); it’s easier to hold others to a higher standard than we apply to ourselves. Be quick to forgive. Remember how sinful you are and how gracious God is. Live in His grace by the Spirit’s enabling; legalism is a deadly trap. Be bold in praying for physical healing and other manifestations of the Spirit’s power. Show magnanimity to those who may not like you or the way you do things—and even learn from your critics. Be winsome and encouraging in your speech. Guard against anything that can mar your character, your Christian reputation, and (most importantly) the cause of Christ. Your life will be a living letter, known and read by others (2 Cor. 3:2).
I pray that these reflections and lessons, which have benefited me, will be of some assistance to you as you journey on with the Lord.
May Christ’s grace and peace go with you—and keep in touch!
Paul Copan
Link.
Roger Morris on 18 Jan 2010 at 12:38 am #Then another comment:
Thanks Paul,
Having just read the bio of John Loftus (http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/) I am reminded how important balance is in the Christian life.
It is vitally important that Christians engage intellectually with the Christian faith and make it a priority to develop the life of the mind. It is also vital as well that learning and acquisition of knowledge translates into an authentic personal relationship with God through proper attention to the devotional and spiritual life. Emphasis of one side at the expense of the other is potentially fatal for one’s Christian faith.
Lisa Robinson on 18 Jan 2010 at 1:07 am #Then I commented (keep in mind that I've had a few comments rejected probably by Michael Patton, so I wanted to make sure what I said didn't argue too much) :-(
Roger, thanks for pointing that bio out. I read through the first few pages of his book (as much as I could under the Amazon preview). This type of book strikes me as a tremendously important read for any seminarian and should probably be required before graduating.
John W. Loftus on 18 Jan 2010 at 6:59 pm #
I just want to say that Paul Copan seems to model his own advice here, much of which we don’t need the Bible for, and it’s a testament to his faith hope and love.
But nothing can prepare you for some of the roadblocks that will be thrown in your path–-nothing! Baz Lurhman said it best to the class of ‘99 in a song titled Everyone’s Free (To wear sunscreen):
The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind; the kind that blindside you at 4pm on some idle Tuesday.And
...what ever you do, don’t congratulate yourself too much or berate yourself either – your choices are half chance, so are everybody else’s.People comment on my story and congratulate themselves for not having made the same choices, but then they were never in my shoes.
The life I’m now leading is nothing compared to the one I dreamed of having. Dreams are still good though. Dream away. Just keep in mind that life can blindside you at any time. Be glad if it doesn’t, but don’t congratulate yourself too much if not.
I won’t berate myself either.
What advice would I give a future seminarian? ;-)
How about a quote?
The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being right.
- Quentin Hogg, M.P.
That's my advice. Christianity is a delusion. Do something different with your life. The arguments are not there, period.
30 comments:
Paul Copan suggests reading the whole Bible each year.
Anybody who can do that without deconverting, must have a stronger stomach than I do.
Just how many people does this God have to kill, before people reading the Good Book start to comprehend what they are reading?
What I don't understand, John, is that, if "our choices are half-chance", how can you say that there are no arguments, "period"? What puts you in a higher epistemic position?
Brad, I do not wish to defend a song, although it is on the mark. But the comment about half chance refers to events that happen to us. What's the alternative? That God determines everything that happens? Problem of evil, anyone?
But you still do not get the point, for even if our decisions and beliefs are half chance then this leads us to agnosticism. I'm willing to be an agnostic, Brad. Are you?
But John, you don't take an agnostic position. You claim that there are no arguments, "period." It seems like agnosticism should claim there are no conclusive arguments instead. I'd be more willing to go along with that.
I see Dr. Copan's advice as sincere but also see it as naive. His ideas remind me of many Christians I know who seek an invisible idealistic world as an anodyne for the difficulties of this one. His suggestion towards humility is not humility, it is docility as a means to be obedient to a collective idea. Karl Rove and George Bush manipulated this psychology to tap into an under-represented demographic as a voting base. The Christians I know that follow Dr. Copan's advice seem genuinely kind but also willfully ignorant to the machinations of politics simply deferring to a comfortable idea that their politics is rooted in following "King Jesus".
Chuck, I don't think it's as naive as it seems. I know there is the tendency, for me at least, to try to impress people with my "learning" as if I were above others. This includes Republicans, who are "so beneath me." (I mean, come on, can I take someone seriously as a person who has never even heard of Kant or knows what a genitive absolute is?)
That attitude is noxious for me, and I think that's what Copan has in mind, because seminary is really good at puffing up egos.
Luke 17:10 is a good mantra for someone who has delusions of grandeur in ministry.
Brad,
I am not talking about grandeur in ministry I am talking about believing that you are "less than" is somehow humility. It isn't, it is docility for the sake of social comfort and, I think it is dangerous. Karl Rove went on record as saying he used this psychographic tendency as a means of segmenting the Evangelical community and use them as a Republican voting base. He made promises he had no intention of keeping because the docile Christians he was getting to vote find comfort in obedience to invisible ideals.
And yes, you should think less of people's ability to reason for themselves if they aren't willing or able to pursue the great ideas that have led us to where we are in history.
That doesn't mean you suffer under the illusion you have all the answers but, devaluing your education as a pretense to some sort of equal aptitude does not seem humble at all.
@Chuck
I am talking about believing that you are "less than" is somehow humility. It isn't, it is docility for the sake of social comfort
I agree. Lately, I seem to see a lot of people trying to win a 'race to the bottom,' where each person downplays their own education and understanding. The logic seems to be "less education -> more common sense."
It's a very tedious tactic.
Equally tedious is the tactic, "There exist great arguments. But I'm not going to present them or link to them here."
Greta Christina wrote a great article calling out this sort of thing.
I wonder if we should even bother engaging with the sorts of traps that she describes. It seems easier, and about as effective, to just call them out.
damn. that was very well said.
Chuck and Richard,
If I understand you both correctly, then I think this is a major point of disagreement between us. (Perhaps we're just talking in different terms, though)
I never bought into Karl Rove or the whole "Operation Freedom" ideal (though I have talked with people on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq who have witnessed real positive change, but probably not in any way systemic). But I can't see any way that my education makes me more valuable as a human than someone who bought the whole thing hook, line, and sinker. My knowledge only represents a minuscule sliver of even biblical scholarship, which itself is a sliver of the academy, which in turn is only a sliver of all human knowledge. I guess I'm just amazed that much of the New Atheist movement (not pointing fingers at you, Chuck and Richard) operates under an 18th century modernist ideal. "Science will cure everything, because we will find the cause of every effect." That is no longer tenable today. Postmodern science has destroyed that notion (see: dynamic systems theory). My humility is, in essence, an empirical fact.
Now I don't think my education so far has been for nothing, because it has been very helpful to me, personally, socially, and vocationally. I intend to use my education to help others think better and live better. But even the most studied scholar today can only be an unquestioned "authority" in a very tiny area. Our individual intellects can only hold so much information.
So I have to listen to the views of others and consider their authority. Why else would I be here? I just can't know everything, even if in a strict comparison I could somehow "beat" someone else intellectually. I've also see the worst of plans and intentions have good outcomes and the best of plans and intentions have terrible ones.
But one thing I do think we agree on, Chuck, is that Christians need to be encouraged to think for themselves (something that I do think is beginning to occur).
@Brett
I guess I'm just amazed that much of the New Atheist movement (not pointing fingers at you, Chuck and Richard) operates under an 18th century modernist ideal.
There may be things humans will never know. There are certainly things that humanity will not know in my lifetime.
But, so what?
Am I to throw up my hands and say, "since I cannot solve this problem, it must be one of the intrinsically impossible ones. Scientists should stop working on it at once!"?
Or, should I search for gaps and say, "Here! Here is a depth that science has not yet plumbed. I will shoehorn my superstitions into it. For, I have faith in an ever-retreating god of the currently-unknown?"
No one seriously claims "Science will cure everything, because we will find the cause of every effect". That position seems self-evidently silly.
(If you feel I'm wrong here, feel free to link to a New Atheist who advances the position you describe.)
Instead, we claim that Physical Evidence and Reasoned Logic are the best tools available for evaluating claims about the physical world.
And, if you perceive some non-PERL system for evaluating claims, by all means, present it.
Well said Richard. Brad your modernist / post-modernist critique seems odd because why would that be germane to any world religion's veracity? If anything it demands we handle truth claims with a probable sense of knowing based on the best available falsifiable evidence and should be skeptical of dogmatic assertions. The claims to revealed knowledge and absolute truth within religion should make post-modernism a relative cold-comfort.
Brad criticises enlightenment thinking.
Apparently we should follow the example of Jesus, who thought demons caused mental illness, and that you could get free money by looking in the mouth of a fish.
I'll stick with the natural world until Brad shows me these demons and angels that live in his world.
Richard, Chuck, and Steve (how are you, BTW?),
I'm glad you all picked up on this because this is a good test case.
Richard, your PERL system is a modernist epistemology called "positivism". Kant formulated the most sophisticated form of this thinking by radicalizing the difference between "fact" (empirical) and "value" (subjective). That view dominated modern thinking, and contributed to the ideal of attaining unadorned facts about the world. It was believed that by this (starting with DesCarte to Hegel) we could have "absolute knowledge". This was applied across the board in the academy, and gave us modernity's great gift: critical thought.
However, after WWI the disenchantment with the academic establishment fermented, and combined with increasing globalization, caused thinkers like Derrida and Foucalt to recognize that humans are not "fact machines" and they applied criticism to the base presuppositions of modernism. I think they are persuasive that there is no human who has an "un-biased" view of the world. Kant's epistemic dualism, IMHO, is destroyed forever.
And positivism (the idea that only the senses give us true knowledge) suffered a spectacular death in the mid to late 20th century because of the collapse of Kant's dualism and the recognition that positivism couldn't even rationally support itself. I think the simple fact that we can be creative is enought to give us pause when we tout "empiricism" or verificationism.
The problem with post-modernism, for everyone, is that it tends toward a pervasive relativism. There are philosophers who make cogent arguments for this relativism, actually. But I think the best way is a via media between modernist and post-modernist thought. We can't go back to a pre-critical way of thinking, but we also can no longer pretend that anyone of us "knows" any unadorned facts.
This is the basis for John's OTF. It is based on a post-modern epistemology, and I think that the premise is sound. John's conclusion, however, is strangely modernistic. He claims that every person who engages the OTF will undoubtedly become an agnostic-atheist. He claims this because, as above, "the arguments just aren't there, period." It seems to me like John is using a pretense of a post-modern epistemology to ramrod through his modernistic certainty.
(continued)
But he isn't the only one.
Dawkins' final chapter in TGD expresses his basis for morality, which is completely divorced from what he sees are the facts of evolution. He goes as far as to suggest that we should actively work against our nature. He (wittingly or unwittingly) is working within the Kantian fact-value dichotomy. That is why he is criticized as having a baseless morality and shallowness in thinking.
But it goes even further. In Dawkins' chapter on cosmology and its relation to naturalism, he tries to apply his verificationist epistemology to the conundrum of the Big Bang. Rather than deal with the reality of the situation, that we don't really know and it can't be used to conclusively prove any worldview, Dawkins asserts that eventually we will find the satisfactory atheistic answer (re: we will find the cause of every effect). Of course, this is a faith statement, not based on any empirical evidence. Dawkins' hat-tip to post-modernism in that "as a scientist" he can't dogmatically assert anything is just a hand wave.
P.Z. Myers also falls prey to this mindset. In his recent appearance on the "Unbelievable" radio show he dismissed the idea of God because "you can't write a grant for that." Really? Has he taken verificationism so far as to suggest that we can't know anything until a grant has been written and a study published? It's difficult for me to believe that either of these two have really interacted with issues of epistemology or history of thought. I would guess that they would even bristle at the notion that they need to deal with those issues, since they are not part of the "hard sciences." (Didn't Dawkins call theology a "non-subject" in defense of his ignorance?)
So when I take a look at the arguments of these men, and see shallow, outdated thinking, and even invalid logic, according to you all (if I understand correctly) I would be justified in looking down on them.
But, of course, I could be wrong about them.
Both Myers and Dawkins have probably forgotten more biology than I will ever know, and I think that they speak from a position of at least intellectual honesty, even if it isn't deep or consistent. I feel I need to listen to them and interact with them and their followers on a real level. Treat them as humans and not use ridicule or debasement as my primary tactic. In other words, be humble.
So Steven, I could give you stories of real demon possessions (which are recognizably different from mental illness), but it wouldn't matter because you are still operating in the Humean verificationist circle. If it doesn't happen to you, then you won't believe anyone else's story. Once again, Derrida and Foucalt have effectively attacked this notion. (I'm still waiting to hear your motive for the Christian fabrications of the N.T., BTW)
I think N.T. Wright's narrative epistemology as outlined in The New Testament and the People of God is a helpful fusion of the modern gift of critical thought and the post-modern gift of perspective.
Chuck, you are right that the church doesn't do well in a culture of pervasive relativism, but that like it's nemesis positivism, is self-refuting. I think Christian traditions, like many Reformed traditions, that emphasize absolute certainty are working under an outdated modernistic pattern. Where would faith be? I think that the Church can deal with the tension well, especially with the concept of faith.
I mean, doesn't it sound silly for John to dogmatically assert that there are absolutely, positively, no arguments? Is it at least in the realm of possibility that he is *gasp*, wrong?
@Brad
I note that you have not shown a New Atheist who believes, "Science will cure everything, because we will find the cause of every effect".
PZ does not
I agree with you that there exist arguments for the existence of God. They even have a Wikipedia page.
If you wish to assert that there are good arguments then present one.
As to your objections to science, if you wish to propose some alternate system for finding things out, please do so.
Until then, I'm still not sure what you're hoping to convince me to do.
What would it even mean to debate God's existence outside of the framework of PEARL? I think everyone here will concede that there exist evidence-less and logically-flawed arguments for God.
The only non-trivial claims that remain seem to be:
"It is emotionally compelling for me to believe X, so you can't say that I SHOULD believe not-X." I'll accept this as true. I can't make anyone believe anything. And, in as far as someone doesn't care about PEARL, they have no particular obligation to care about (or accept) my PEARL-based arguments.
Also, there seems to be, "Belief in the irrational is very common. So, atheists should not view belief in God as such a moral negative." To me, this one is a bit more interesting.
Richard,
I'm not rejecting science, I'm actually trying to interact with what we know about the world from science. The newest science we have, as demonstrated by systems theory, shows that our perspectives are necessarily cloudy.
Feynman expresses a real sentiment, but he misses one thing, the question that confounded modernity and led to post modernity:
When he "knows" something about the universe, is the knowledge in the "object" of the universe or is it in the "subject" of his own perceptions? (He references the doubt of Descartes, but doesn't take it far enough)
(also, for P.Z. to claim through Feynman that science doesn't have all the answers yet doesn't change the fact that he thinks that science, and only science, is the way to gain knowledge. I saw one commenter on the post disregard all of the history of human thought in this regard. Do I hear an echo???)
Let me illustrate. Who am I to you? Am I an objective person typing thoughts, or am I a mind you are interacting with internally? Are they the same thing? In other words, is my reality the same as your perception of me?
I don't think the two, in this case especially, correspond.
I'm not arguing here for God's existence, I'm just arguing for humility based on the nature (as demonstrated by both science and philosophy) of who we are.
BTW, Kant, Barth, and Bultmann all make powerful arguments for God's existence apart from PEARL.
Brad here's the rub for me. I work in healthcare and manage the development of a biologic drug which has shown efficacy in down modulating human T-cells as a treatment for Rheumatoid Arthritis. If we were to socially accept the arguments you make as essential to mankind this drug would probably not exist. I say this because we would not be able to perform animal tests due to the denial of common descent and would ignore probability when assessing efficacy end points. No scientist practicing science brings your questions of reality into their null hypothesis. The only people I know who think the kind of thinking you purport essential are Christian theologists defending their religion with a god of the gaps argument.
Chuck, you're going to have to help me follow this. I'm not sure I understand where the rub is.
I'm arguing for philosophic matters, not matters of the practice of science. I would actually consider myself a moderate realist and see the scientific method as a very helpful one considering our epistemic condition. Did I deny common descent or imply that anywhere? The larger point I want to make is that we still can't say for certain what will happen in any given human subject, in the case of your drug, because even one individual cell is a complex system of biochemistry. That is why we need experimentation to determine probable levels of efficacy over against a null hypothesis. It's not an experimenter's job to determine all of the questions of knowledge beforehand, they are taken as presuppositions. But a philosopher of science does have to consider those issues. I'm looking at the philosophic side here because John was making a claim of philosophy.
But, once again, I may be missing something, and if I am, let me know.
Brad
I see you enabling bad ideas with your efforts at practicing the philosophy of science absent a realistic context and as such set the stage for the kind of systemic absolutes that stalled science in the dark ages.
If you want to posit the philosophic considerations you do then I'd be more comfortable that you place them within a context that infers their utility. Your arguments as they are seem little more than sophistry in service of the great commission. I don't see them as an honest effort to build useful knowledge but rather see them as a defense of your particular religious beliefs. Philosophy absent of an honest desire to maximize utility plants the seeds of tyranny.
Well, Chuck, I guess I have to disagree. I think that good philosophy of science will lead to better scientific practice.
Our system's understanding has led to a greater emphasis on experimentation, developed new mathematical models and we've also become more aware to the ways in which bias and interest can cloud conclusions in the post-modern era.
But are you really expounding a sort of pervasive utilitarianism? Isn't determining the nature of knowledge (whether in the subject or object or a connection of the two) an end in and of itself? I think that "practical" science divorced from any presuppositions is a myth, and I think that those presuppositions are fair game for critical study. It doesn't just bear on scientific practice, but it bears on application and ethics.
I would actually say the opposite of your last line, that disallowing philosophy because of "practical" concerns sows the seeds of tyranny. It seems like that is the essence of totalitarianism, which is usually paved with good intentions.
Once again, I'm not suggesting that you have ulterior motives or would ever allow any specter of tyranny, but I do think the only safeguard against it is a willingness to pursue critical lines of thought irrespective of practical concerns.
Brad,
You said, "Well, Chuck, I guess I have to disagree. I think that good philosophy of science will lead to better scientific practice."
That's not my point.
My point is that "good philosophy of science" takes into consideration the clinical practice of current science and potential advances in scientific utility if it is going to serve "better scientific practice".
I know a bit about you Brad and know that your vocational focus is not scientific inquiry nor its current clinical practice therefore, I question your use of the philosophy as anything more than a premise in defense of your primary vocation, religion.
Chuck,
I've got to be honest, it bothers me a little that you would bring in my profession to question my use of philosophy. It shouldn't matter on one hand, and on the other, I've been involved in educational research as another vocational focus. I actually think that ministry needs to appropriate good scientific practice and am developing research tools (mostly survey) toward that end.
If I had to clarify, I'd say that philosophy of science and practice go hand in hand. Philosophy comes first, but practice can inform it, as you assert. I just have no idea where you get the idea that I'm discounting the current practice of science. Did I imply somewhere that experimental conclusions are invalid?
My point is that science cannot give us absolute knowledge. The end of every scientific paper has a section on "discussion" to try to tease out the implications of the data. Here's an example that hopefully you will resonate with. In order to reject a null hypothesis, there has to be some agreement on what would constitute an acceptable demonstration of change, the alpha value. (I'm sure you're familiar with this, but I'm repeating it to frame the argument) In your case, who sets the alpha value and determines when or if it goes to market? That in and of itself is outside of the scope of the experimentation. In fact, the strength of the experiment is directly related to how focused (controlled) it is from outside factors.
Presuppositions about existence, ethics, and epistemology (and economics?) all precede the experimentation. It just isn't a vacuum. And to control for what we now see as inevitable human error (thanks to post-modernism), we have a peer-review process. That is why I say that dogmatism like John's has no place in today's intellectual landscape.
Once again, I think that contemporary scientific practice is good and useful, and even needs to be applied more to ministry settings. But we always have to acknowledge that, whether we recognize it or not, we are working within certain basic presuppositions about the world and morality.
I'm imagining a baking contest. The judges are just about to award the blue ribbon for, "Best Chocolate Cake."
Suddenly a figure rushes forward in the room. "You cannot, in good faith, award that ribbon!" he cries. "We can not be certain of our senses! The strongest claim you can possibly make is, 'Best Perceived Flavor of a Chocolate Cake'!"
The judges confer. After some time, the most senior baker, a man of some great regard in cake-circles steps forward and announces. "Ah, but we cannot even say that. I am not tasting the cake now. If my senses can deceive me, so can my memory."
So, a new ribbon is constructed, reading, "Best perceived recalled flavor for a chocolate cake."
The award ceremony is about to continue when an audience member cries out, "How can you be sure that the cake was chocolate?" Another quickly adds, "And even if it was, how can we be certain that it continues to be?"
The ribbon is again altered to read, "Best perceived recalled flavor for a cake that, to the best of our senses and recollection, was chocolate at the time of judging."
A young man from the audience gets into the game, "And who are you to impose your standards of 'best' as though they were objective? Preferences are an entirely subjective affair."
So, the award is re-re-re-written to be, "The best of the things which appeared, to the best of our senses and recollections, to be chocolate cakes at the time of judging, as measured according to what we recall having appeared to be a consensus of our subjective preferences."
Then, from the audience, a small girl speaks up. "But, all observations depend on our senses and memories. Everyone already knows this. And, all preferences are subjective. Everybody knows that too.
"So, the commonly understood meaning of 'best cake' already incorporates those assumptions, and we don't need to re-state them! If we define words any other way, then there's going to be an infinite regress of disclaimers."
So it was that the ribbon was reduced back to "Best Chocolate Cake."
Brad,
All I requested is real-world propositions along-side the philosophical ruminations when it comes to any discussion regarding the philosophy of science. It is hard to trust the direction of the conversation when "modernism/post-modernism" are thrown around relative to religious discussions by a religious professional. Doesn't post-modernism dictate that context is important for meaning? The context of your profession is important to determine the practical importance of the ideal meaning when you propose philosophy of science questions.
William Lane Craig does it all the time and it is plainly obvious he is doing it as an apologetic, not as one who is truly humble to scientific inquiry or practice.
Thanks for your willingness to clarify with an example.
Additionally, the alpha value is considered relative to previously observed data and with standard p-value approval measures it can operate within a probable level of future success.
One equivocates if they consider, for argument's sake, the alpha value of the measurement of the Holy Spirit in a random sample of King James bibles as an equal measurable proposition to the alpha value of progression free suvival at 6 months for patients with glio-blastoma multiforme undergoing anti-angiogenic treatment with localized radiation therapy.
The former can't be observed the latter can. Additionally the latter can be observed relative to historical standards of palliative care, or chemo-theraphy, or radiation therapy. Those latter standards can then set a reasonable alpha-value.
I think John argues that a scientific model of knowing is preferred to a supernatural one. I agree with him. I also agree with you that many presuppositions go into a decision model but, there is a marked difference between natural and supernatural presuppositions. The presupposition that the bible is "Holy Spirit Directed" is not one I would trust (not saying you believe that but, just clarifying what I mean when I consider an un-trustworthy presupposition).
I am no philosopher however. I just want to work on things that work for people and my experience suggests when Christianity tries to use science to make theological or philosophical commentary its result is that science stops working.
Chuck,
I think we've finally hit on some agreement! I agree that when the Church canonizes a theory, then all kinds of problems ensue. WLC is guilty of this at times, but I've noticed that he knows more than me about a whole host of these issues, so I don't criticize him for it.
But there are many Christians who practice science for the sake of science. Francis Collins is the most notable (from his book The Language of God), but also on the Veritas Forum you can find every stripe of professional academic that also profess Jesus.
My view is that science is a reliable method for acquiring knowledge (I'm a moderate realist), but that there is no such thing as a "scientific worldview" because science is couched in a larger epistemology (also, it would not be able to support its base presuppositions internally). Once again, Collins is a good illustration of how faith and science are not mutually exclusive.
(There are even Christians who are advocating for a rejection of methodological naturalism, to study, say, the effects of the Holy Spirit in history. It seems like nonsense to me, though, because the Spirit is not a natural force but a person)
The argument I want to put forward in light of my discussion, again, is that we need to be humble and modest in our assertions because of the nature of knowledge.
RichardH,
You gave a great example of what Plantinga calls a "properly basic belief". I agree 100% with the gist of the illustration.
But there is still a conundrum (remember, I'm only arguing for humility here)
How can you demonstrate that John's assertion that "the arguments just aren't there, period" is in any way qualitatively different from the judges assertion that cake x is the "Best Chocolate Cake"?
You have to move past modernistic verificationism to answer that question.
Brad,
Here's an honest question that might seem inflammatory relative to your statement, "The argument I want to put forward in light of my discussion, again, is that we need to be humble and modest in our assertions because of the nature of knowledge."
How do you do this when the Bible has declared a singular definition of what is the best a human can be and, has commanded those who agree with it to compel others to agree with it?
I fail to see any humility in the assertion that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world and that at the end times every knee will bend and every head will bow at His name, the name above all names.
Additionally those, like me, are seen as Hell-bound by people who choose to believe your faith. How do you reconcile these theological assertions with your desire for humility? I struggle how to see them as anything but mutually exclusive.
I've read Collins' book and really enjoyed the appendix on bio-ethics. I am working on a project that looks to anticipate the impact that the human genome project will have on the practice of medicine.
I don't see how his faith has helped his science and since many of his collaborators on the Human Genome Project where avowed atheists, I don't see how Christianity is necessary to the practice of useful science.
There may be many scientists who call themselves Christians (although total percentages are small) but, how does orthodox Christianity help the advance of science? Or, how does deferring to the Christian doctrine that Jesus is the savior of the world and all must bow to this or suffer, help the honest inquiry necessary to uncover natural truths?
I'd like to hear your perspective on these things.
Chuck, why do you have to ask such penetrating questions?
I thought you might already be familiar with Collins, so let me clarify my thoughts on that issue. Of course Collins worked with atheists and skeptics and all stripes in the Genome project. There is nothing inherent in atheism which would preclude someone from making correct observations or cataloging them or even making inferences from the data. In that sense you don't need to adhere to any worldview to "do science."
But for Collins, as for all of us, the body of science doesn't constitute all of our knowledge (Collins would even say that he is motivated to do science by a devotional concern). And what's more, science can tell us very little about what to do with the data when we have it.
You are gathering data (I'm assuming here) in order to create more effective treatments. In other words, the data isn't an end in and of itself, and you gather the data with an interest in mind. I might argue that your humanistic concerns have a Christian heritage, but that has no bearing on your actual practice (experimentation and observation) of science. To modify Gould's notion somewhat, I would say that faith and science are partially overlapping magisteria.
Now as to Christian particularism, I think that many Christians have fallen into the trap of modernism as well and dared to proclaim God's thoughts and intentions for Himself. We have somehow tricked ourselves into thinking we have absolute knowledge about a transcendent God. We have God's revelation mediated to us through literature and our reason.
So what does that mean?
It means that competing ways of looking at hell and particularism must be taken seriously. No off-hand dismissal of annhilationism or universalism within evangelicalism. Both at least try to make biblical (from revelation) arguments. I'm not convinced, yet, of either of them, but I'm still considering them. Universalism is beginning to get more traction, and it may prevail, though I'm not holding my breath.
But I don't think the NT commands us to "compel" others to assent to propositions about Jesus. The most used word in the NT is "proclaim", as in proclaim Jesus as the answer to our questions about life and death. I don't claim absolute knowledge in and of myself, I just point to Jesus and commend him to others. I follow Him because I have seen that message transform my life and many others close to me (it works). And when I went through a season of doubt, serendipitous consequences and a tug in the depths of my heart wouldn't let me go. I know you are opposed to the "inner witness of the Holy Spirit" for good reasons, but I'm not advocating unconditional election. I almost rejected all of those occurrences and feelings, but in the end decided to accept them and step back into discipleship on faith (a la Kierkegaard). I haven't been disappointed since.
I know the doctrine of hell is odious to someone "outside". I also think it has been misappropriated throughout the history of the church. But, as of right now, I can say that Jesus gives me hope both in this life and after death. I trust that God will be just in His judgment, and as such I will never presume to judge for Him, but I also affirm a peaceful assurance of His goodness through Jesus. Will the moral atheist be condemned? I cannot say. The NT is explicit that God is the ultimate judge. I can claim, however, based on my study and experience, that "Christ Saves!" I do think that treating ideas and doctrines as unimportant or "secondary" is naive. Thoughts and ideas do have consequences.
I guess my real question in return would be: If you were able to believe that Jesus as portrayed in the NT (not in popular American evangelicalism) is in any way a representation of reality, would you not want to follow Him?
Brad,
Your question, "If you were able to believe that Jesus as portrayed in the NT (not in popular American evangelicalism) is in any way a representation of reality, would you not want to follow Him?"
I don't know because there is not one consistent character represented in the NT.
The idea of intrinsic worth is attractive and that part of Christianity is good but, that is not the only aspect of Jesus revealed in the NT, is it?
Chuck, I'm super busy the next couple of days finishing up a class. How about I email you so we can keep the conversation going?
Post a Comment