PDA

View Full Version : The end of Christianity



whag
04-27-2014, 07:34 PM
I recently read Bill Dembski's "The End of Christianity," which is about theodicy. Dembski's book tries to explain theodicy retroactively and argues that natural evil was caused by human sin. The effect (natural evil) came before the cause (the fall).

A bit of a fracas ensued over the book at Dembski's place of employment, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. A professor there named Tom Nettles wrote a critical review of the book. Some dude named David Allen wrote a response to that review in a white paper, with a foreward by Dembski's boss, Paige Patterson. In attempting to defend Dembski's views, Allen includes a striking retraction by Dembski that shows how deeply the controversy went:


(1) As a biblical inerrantist, I accept the full verbal inspiration of the Bible and the conventional authorship of the books of the Bible. Thus, in particular, I accept Mosaic authorship of Genesis (and of the Pentateuch) and reject the Documentary Hypothesis. (2) Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1–11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. (3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors.

http://www.baptisttheology.org/baptisttheology/assets/File/AReplytoTomNettlesReviewofDembskisTheEndofChristia nity.pdf

Patterson couldn't afford any misunderstanding on these points risking the school's integrity and (probably) angering its patrons. In a meeting that preceded the white paper, Patterson asked for clarification from Dembski. As far as I know, that's the origin of the retraction.

Since then, Dembski has specifically rejected evolution, denying some of the weightiest evidence for it (e.g., hominid fossils and primate DNA).

Cow Poke
04-27-2014, 07:55 PM
I'm glad I'm not the only one who screws up thread titles.

whag
04-27-2014, 08:10 PM
I'm glad I'm not the only one who screws up thread titles.

Fixed. =P

Cow Poke
04-27-2014, 08:23 PM
Fixed. =P

Yeah, I've tried that before, too -- it only works for the "thread title" of that particular post. :shrug:

RBerman
04-27-2014, 08:31 PM
Just to clarify: Paige Patterson is at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, not Southern Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. Al Mohler is in charge at the latter.

whag
04-27-2014, 09:07 PM
Just to clarify: Paige Patterson is at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, not Southern Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. Al Mohler is in charge at the latter.

Thanks for the clarification.

whag
04-27-2014, 09:09 PM
Yeah, I've tried that before, too -- it only works for the "thread title" of that particular post. :shrug:

Well fiddlesticks.

Raphael
04-27-2014, 09:53 PM
Well fiddlesticks.

fixed it as it was annoying the stuffing out of me.

whag
04-28-2014, 06:20 AM
Thanks, Raphael.

whag
04-28-2014, 06:32 AM
It would seem William Lane Craig lied when he called Dembski an evolutionist in his "Triumph of Behe" video.

http://youtu.be/C8tZxcGJyhM

I wonder if it's a conscious attempt to confuse rather than clarify. If it's to clarify, Craig should go back to the drawing board. He's doing it wrong.

It does explain why men like Enns and Giberson have support. Their appeal probably isn't because of cultural decay, but because of Dembski's and Craig's horrible way of reasoning through their protologies and teleologies.

GakuseiDon
04-28-2014, 10:18 AM
It would seem William Lane Craig lied when he called Dembski an evolutionist in his "Triumph of Behe" video.

http://youtu.be/C8tZxcGJyhM

I wonder if it's a conscious attempt to confuse rather than clarify. If it's to clarify, Craig should go back to the drawing board. He's doing it wrong.
Craig actually calls Dembski an ID advocate who believes ID is compatible with evolutionary biology (about 4 mins 30 secs in).

KingsGambit
04-28-2014, 10:35 AM
This particular video dates back several years. Is it necessarily inconsistent with the chronology of assertion then pressured retraction? (I really don't know.)

whag
04-28-2014, 11:05 AM
This particular video dates back several years. Is it necessarily inconsistent with the chronology of assertion then pressured retraction? (I really don't know.)

I don't know, but if so, Craig then needs his own retraction. In any case, Craig's question is either intentionally misleading or misinformed, since Dembski's views stand in direct contradiction to NCSE's views. Obviously, the editorial meant TEs who accept speciation. Dembski never has accepted speciation.

It's hard to be a TE if you don't accept speciation. Might as well call Ham a TE for accepting microevolution.

whag
04-28-2014, 11:21 AM
Craig actually calls Dembski an ID advocate who believes ID is compatible with evolutionary biology (about 4 mins 30 secs in).

Is that meant to clarify or confuse? I would argue it's to confuse, since Dembski is a critic of evolution more than he is an apologist for evolution. The context of the video is Craig's indignation that NCSE wouldn't tap Dembski to win hearts and minds on the truth of evolution, instead preferring actual TEs like Ken Miller to do the persuading.

GakuseiDon
04-28-2014, 12:19 PM
Is that meant to clarify or confuse?
Well, I think it is clearer than your statement that "It would seem William Lane Craig lied when he called Dembski an evolutionist". Craig didn't call him that. He called him "an ID advocate who believes ID is compatible with evolutionary biology".


I would argue it's to confuse, since Dembski is a critic of evolution more than he is an apologist for evolution. The context of the video is Craig's indignation that NCSE wouldn't tap Dembski to win hearts and minds on the truth of evolution, instead preferring actual TEs like Ken Miller to do the persuading.
Yes, that's the point that Craig is responding to: that Creationists would be better convinced on evolution if they hear it from TEs. He is surprised that IDers like Behe and Dembski who believe that ID and evolutionary biology are compatible aren't included for the same reason.

In your view, who was Craig trying to confuse by mentioning Behe and Dembski in that context?

whag
04-28-2014, 01:00 PM
Well, I think it is clearer than your statement that "It would seem William Lane Craig lied when he called Dembski an evolutionist". Craig didn't call him that. He called him "an ID advocate who believes ID is compatible with evolutionary biology".

If the context of the mission to win hearts and minds is evolution apologetics, Craig is smart enough to know why Dembski was excluded. It wouldn't make sense to hire Dembski to be an apologist if he is known only for opposing it and never for apologizing for it. Have you read any of Dembski's books or the history of the Dover trial?



Yes, that's the point that Craig is responding to: that Creationists would be better convinced on evolution if they hear it from TEs. He is surprised that IDers like Behe and Dembski who believe that ID and evolutionary biology are compatible aren't included for the same reason.

Dembski isn't TE. NCSE isn't looking for compatibalists but apologists.


In your view, who was Craig trying to confuse by mentioning Behe and Dembski in that context?

I'm not sure, but you seem to fit the bill. TE isn't just compatibalism but entails processing the evidence we have now, not imagined evidence that might come down the pike in the future.

whag
04-28-2014, 01:54 PM
Craig goes on to say "[Dembski and Behe] are quietly sort of not mentioned [in Domning's list], oddly enough."

He selectively honors context. It's not odd in the slightest to exclude anti-evolution apologists from persuading people that God created fish, birds, and human beings through evolution.

Cerebrum123
04-28-2014, 03:25 PM
I don't know, but if so, Craig then needs his own retraction. In any case, Craig's question is either intentionally misleading or misinformed, since Dembski's views stand in direct contradiction to NCSE's views. Obviously, the editorial meant TEs who accept speciation. Dembski never has accepted speciation.

It's hard to be a TE if you don't accept speciation. Might as well call Ham a TE for accepting microevolution.

:eh:
I think you might have your terms wrong on this one. Even most YEC's I know of, especially the large organizations accept speciation. Just not beyond a certain point.

In fact, AiG, Ham's ministry, accepts rapid speciation. It's part of their model IIRC.

ETA: I don't really want to get into a discussion here, just wanted to point this out. Certain things like this get posted and I just can't resist putting up some kind of response.

whag
04-28-2014, 04:07 PM
:eh:
I think you might have your terms wrong on this one. Even most YEC's I know of, especially the large organizations accept speciation. Just not beyond a certain point.

In fact, AiG, Ham's ministry, accepts rapid speciation. It's part of their model IIRC.

ETA: I don't really want to get into a discussion here, just wanted to point this out. Certain things like this get posted and I just can't resist putting up some kind of response.

Dembski and AiG redefined the term by removing the evolutionary component. I'm using the word that evolutionists use, not a pet definition.

NormATive
05-04-2014, 07:42 PM
I recently read Bill Dembski's "The End of Christianity," which is about theodicy. Dembski's book tries to explain theodicy retroactively and argues that natural evil was caused by human sin. The effect (natural evil) came before the cause (the fall).

A bit of a fracas ensued over the book at Dembski's place of employment, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. A professor there named Tom Nettles wrote a critical review of the book. Some dude named David Allen wrote a response to that review in a white paper, with a foreward by Dembski's boss, Paige Patterson. In attempting to defend Dembski's views, Allen includes a striking retraction by Dembski that shows how deeply the controversy went:



http://www.baptisttheology.org/baptisttheology/assets/File/AReplytoTomNettlesReviewofDembskisTheEndofChristia nity.pdf

Patterson couldn't afford any misunderstanding on these points risking the school's integrity and (probably) angering its patrons. In a meeting that preceded the white paper, Patterson asked for clarification from Dembski. As far as I know, that's the origin of the retraction.

Since then, Dembski has specifically rejected evolution, denying some of the weightiest evidence for it (e.g., hominid fossils and primate DNA).

The Jews have never really been troubled by the notion of evil:


I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

—Isaiah 45:7

After the Holocaust, the Reformed Community rejected G-d's innocence in the matter. We are on our own. The problem of evil is our problem, even though its source is G-d, as creator of ALL.

BTW, I recall when I asked the Baptist minister of our church at the time what the dinosaur bones I had just examined in a museum in Arizona meant, he said; "the Devil planted those bones in the desert to snare young minds and turn them away from Jesus."

How's that for Theodicy!

NORM

whag
05-05-2014, 07:59 AM
The Jews have never really been troubled by the notion of evil:



After the Holocaust, the Reformed Community rejected G-d's innocence in the matter. We are on our own. The problem of evil is our problem, even though its source is G-d, as creator of ALL.

That's moral evil, not natural evil. Dembski's book is more an explanation of why there are black widows, earthquakes, and asteroids.


BTW, I recall when I asked the Baptist minister of our church at the time what the dinosaur bones I had just examined in a museum in Arizona meant, he said; "the Devil planted those bones in the desert to snare young minds and turn them away from Jesus."

How's that for Theodicy!

NORM

Views like Dembski's are more sophisticated. Most Christians would subscribe to Dembski's view and not the one where God plants dinosaur bones to deceive and test your faith. Instead, he deceives and tests your faith by making it look like landslides are natural rather than the direct result of the fall.

Though more sophisticated, the latter view falls just as hard.

firstfloor
05-06-2014, 03:16 PM
Christianity will continue on and change some more – it is already reduced to entertainment – but creationism is definitely on its last legs. The fools will eventually get fed up of being laughed at.
I don’t know if you will get this video – British TV. Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug
One guy here doesn’t seem to know that humans are animals.
“I don't get it, Tyrell. How can it not know what it is?” - Deckard

RBerman
05-06-2014, 04:03 PM
Christianity will continue on and change some more – it is already reduced to entertainment – but creationism is definitely on its last legs. The fools will eventually get fed up of being laughed at.

Christianity in general is on its last legs, in the West, with much "getting laughed at" for sexual mores, for views of the work of Christ, for miracles, etc. But then again, Western culture itself is imploding due to unsustainable birth rates. Around the world, it's a different story. I wonder what sort of beliefs the rapidly expanding churches in China, India, Africa, and South America have on these matters.

whag
05-06-2014, 05:08 PM
Christianity in general is on its last legs, in the West, with much "getting laughed at" for sexual mores, for views of the work of Christ, for miracles, etc.
Not actually Christianity, but conservative evangelicalism and catholicism. And not for those reasons but for anti-evolution views, unsustainable views of abortion and reproductive control, and climate change denial. Their views on homosexuality are generally divorced from reality, as well, so that earns laughter, too. It's not really about sexual mores and miracles, especially.


But then again, Western culture itself is imploding due to unsustainable birth rates. Around the world, it's a different story.

No, it's the same story as the US, especially in third world countries. Birth rates are even more unsustainable because of demonization of birth control.


I wonder what sort of beliefs the rapidly expanding churches in China, India, Africa, and South America have on these matters.

Shouldn't that be easy to determine?

lilpixieofterror
05-06-2014, 05:25 PM
Christianity will continue on and change some more – it is already reduced to entertainment – but creationism is definitely on its last legs. The fools will eventually get fed up of being laughed at.
I don’t know if you will get this video – British TV. Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug
One guy here doesn’t seem to know that humans are animals.
“I don't get it, Tyrell. How can it not know what it is?” - Deckard

More of your hatred again FF? :thumb:

RBerman
05-06-2014, 06:20 PM
Not actually Christianity, but conservative evangelicalism and catholicism. And not for those reasons but for anti-evolution views, unsustainable views of abortion and reproductive control, and climate change denial. Their views on homosexuality are generally divorced from reality, as well, so that earns laughter, too. It's not really about sexual mores and miracles, especially.
The denominations with the most liberal social views have seen the sharpest declines in membership and funding.


No, it's the same story as the US, especially in third world countries. Birth rates are even more unsustainable because of demonization of birth control.
That depends on war, immigration, etc. Eventually, something will have to give.


Shouldn't that be easy to determine?

If it has been studied, yes.

Carrikature
05-06-2014, 07:31 PM
I wonder what sort of beliefs the rapidly expanding churches in China, India, Africa, and South America have on these matters.

I'd suspect something drastically different given the lack of insistence on Western philosophical traditions. Paprika might be able to better elaborate, as would Pinoy.

firstfloor
05-07-2014, 12:19 AM
Christianity in general is on its last legs, in the West, with much "getting laughed at" for sexual mores, for views of the work of Christ, for miracles, etc. But then again, Western culture itself is imploding due to unsustainable birth rates. Around the world, it's a different story. I wonder what sort of beliefs the rapidly expanding churches in China, India, Africa, and South America have on these matters.
I know what you mean. Empires come and go. We live in a rapidly changing world. Before long, so I hear, burger flippers are going to be replaced by machines. The world will be split in two; the ultra rich in one half and the impoverished and desperate in the other. The ultra rich will have all the technology and won’t need the poor people to work for them. The middle class will build the technology for the rich and will spend much of their hard earned cash defending themselves from the poor.

BBC radio last night (Martin Wolf is the chief economics commentator at the Financial Times) “The future is not what it used to be.”
The baby boom generation came of age when it was accepted knowledge that innovation and productivity would always lead to higher standards of living. The generations which followed assumed this truth would continue into the future indefinitely. With the crash of 2008 the upward mobility the middle classes assumed was their right evaporated, and it is unlikely to return.

How will we fare in the race against the machines and cope with winner takes all markets, etc?

firstfloor
05-07-2014, 12:29 AM
More of your hatred again FF? :thumb:
Certainly not LPOT; there is definitely no hatred on my part. I really would like you to see my most modest and random contributions in a more positive light; at most, slightly challenging of the status quo.

Paprika
05-07-2014, 12:45 AM
I'd suspect something drastically different given the lack of insistence on Western philosophical traditions. Paprika might be able to better elaborate, as would Pinoy.
I can only comment on Asia, and with a very broad brush. Unlike most Western countries, most Asian ones do not have a long history of Christendom (eg at least a thousand years for Europe and many hundreds for USA). Due to colonialism, post-colonialism, and the stranglehold of Western thought that still generally persists today not least due to English being the global lingua franca, the extent to which Western ideas are accepted, rejected, modified, undermined, adopted etc is very, very complex and difficult to determine, especially when "Western thought" is not a monolithic whole but itself consists of many, many different streams and variations.

Theologically, there has generally been an uncritical acceptance of the tradition of the one who brings you to faith. Most ecumenical quarrels, which aren't many, have been imported - we just don't seem to have the infighting that the Christians in the West have to such a great degree (which isn't terribly surprising, as one of the main reasons the ecumenical movement gained so much force was that the missionaries in the field found that they weren't so dissimilar after all.)

On the specific issues:
1) Creationism: controversy has mostly been imported. Not really a big deal here, as in most Christian countries other than the US of A. (You guys do realise that it's an obsession almost completely belonging to your country, and otherwise imported from yours? Same with dispensationalism and inerrancy.)

2) Sexual mores: the Western ones arising from the decadent movement (Europe) and the sexual revolution (USA) were completely alien to the Asian countries, but due to Western media, education, etc there's been a slow but steady acceptance of such ideas. Most Christians are conservative on such matters, which generally accords with the social consensus.

3) Work of Christ, miracles: we haven't had Hume. Again, any such ideas here are generally imported. Skepticism of miracles isn't very high because generally people haven't been educated to believe that miracles don't happen or that if God or gods, exist, they are far away and don't interact with people.

NormATive
05-07-2014, 05:09 AM
Christianity will continue on and change some more – it is already reduced to entertainment – but creationism is definitely on its last legs. The fools will eventually get fed up of being laughed at.
I don’t know if you will get this video – British TV. Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug
One guy here doesn’t seem to know that humans are animals.
“I don't get it, Tyrell. How can it not know what it is?” - Deckard

Interesting video, FF. I did sense a bit of condescension on the part of the host, but the most telling scene was the one with the anthropologist toward the end of the film. He has the members of the caravan arrange human skulls in the order of their progression. It is very difficult indeed to deny the evidence right before your eyes.

NORM

firstfloor
05-07-2014, 06:41 AM
Interesting video, FF. I did sense a bit of condescension on the part of the host, but the most telling scene was the one with the anthropologist toward the end of the film. He has the members of the caravan arrange human skulls in the order of their progression. It is very difficult indeed to deny the evidence right before your eyes.
Horseshoe bend in the Grand Canyon was a cracker. Phil was completely stumped but it’s just too difficult for him to process the information. All radically new information has the potential to be gut wrenching but creationists have convinced themselves that they will be punished if they give up on their beliefs and so they are really in an almost impossible position. What they are faced with is probably worse than ‘coming out’ for someone who is gay.

whag
05-07-2014, 07:48 AM
The denominations with the most liberal social views have seen the sharpest declines in membership and funding.

So conservative Christianity isn't, in fact, dying. Rather liberal Christianity is.



That depends on war, immigration, etc. Eventually, something will have to give.

Unsustainable birth rates mainly have to do with education and demonization of birth control. Without war and immigration, the human cycle of reproduction would continue and still be unsustainable, just as unplanned families continue to be unsustainable here, whether immigrated or not.




If it has been studied, yes.

Overseas Christianity hasn't been studied?

Cornelius
06-07-2014, 05:53 AM
Since then, Dembski has specifically rejected evolution, denying some of the weightiest evidence for it (e.g., hominid fossils and primate DNA).

I gotta tell you, I don't have a lot of interest in the evolution-creation debates but....Are those really the "weightiest" pieces of evidence?

A. Hominid fossils - the subjectivity of this, I cannot begin to tell you. Some years ago at an arcade I could have sworn I saw someone whose face looked exactly like a chimp's! I can only imagine how easy it is to "see" a hominid fossil amongst a pile of misshaped human/monkey skeletons (as Answers in Genesis suggests).

B. Primate DNA - well, bananas and humans share 60% of their DNA - I mean what kind of proof is that? Does that make us 60% bananas or vice versa? We have even more water in our bodies: what is it, 70%? Surely you can't base your conclusions on that. And the 1.5-3% difference between humans and chimps is A LOT, whether you think about it or not. Let me put it for you mathematically:

1. Natural genetic mutations occur 1 per 100,000 from bacteria to humans. About 7 are kept per generation in the genome (already an indicator that the degradation of the genome precludes evolution from happening on such a massive scale). Let's raise 7 to 10 out of convenience and higher genetic mutations over millions of years.
2. 1.5% of 3 billion base pairs is 45 million.
3. Gorillas reach puberty ~10 years of age, pretty convenient so 1 generation is 10 years and each generation you get 10 base pairs, so that means it's roughly 1 mutation per year mathematically.
4. Humans and chimps diverged what: 4-5 million years ago? Far shorter from the 45 million needed to achieve the dissonance between humans and other primates. Even if you split the difference down the middle for the hypothetical ancestor, you're still looking at 20+ million missing mutations. Even with gene replication (Dawkins' attempt to resolve this riddle), you still have 20 million missing mutations, and it's unlikely all of it would be explained by gene replication or else it'd be right up there on the list since it'd be pretty obvious.

Correct what is probably wrong, these are just my thoughts on this over the years

whag
06-07-2014, 03:31 PM
I gotta tell you, I don't have a lot of interest in the evolution-creation debates but....Are those really the "weightiest" pieces of evidence?

I think so.


A. Hominid fossils - the subjectivity of this, I cannot begin to tell you. Some years ago at an arcade I could have sworn I saw someone whose face looked exactly like a chimp's! I can only imagine how easy it is to "see" a hominid fossil amongst a pile of misshaped human/monkey skeletons (as Answers in Genesis suggests).

What?


B. Primate DNA - well, bananas and humans share 60% of their DNA - I mean what kind of proof is that? Does that make us 60% bananas or vice versa? We have even more water in our bodies: what is it, 70%? Surely you can't base your conclusions on that. And the 1.5-3% difference between humans and chimps is A LOT, whether you think about it or not. Let me put it for you mathematically:

1. Natural genetic mutations occur 1 per 100,000 from bacteria to humans. About 7 are kept per generation in the genome (already an indicator that the degradation of the genome precludes evolution from happening on such a massive scale). Let's raise 7 to 10 out of convenience and higher genetic mutations over millions of years.
2. 1.5% of 3 billion base pairs is 45 million.
3. Gorillas reach puberty ~10 years of age, pretty convenient so 1 generation is 10 years and each generation you get 10 base pairs, so that means it's roughly 1 mutation per year mathematically.
4. Humans and chimps diverged what: 4-5 million years ago? Far shorter from the 45 million needed to achieve the dissonance between humans and other primates. Even if you split the difference down the middle for the hypothetical ancestor, you're still looking at 20+ million missing mutations. Even with gene replication (Dawkins' attempt to resolve this riddle), you still have 20 million missing mutations, and it's unlikely all of it would be explained by gene replication or else it'd be right up there on the list since it'd be pretty obvious.

Correct what is probably wrong, these are just my thoughts on this over the years

The DNA evidence I was thinking about was human chromosome number 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)).

What do you think happened? Everything was created fully formed?