tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post115731483047126342..comments2023-10-28T03:26:35.948-05:00Comments on Catholic in the Third Millennium: Keith Ward: Beyond BoundariesDan Dunlaphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-24999699682310791502015-10-06T15:32:56.839-05:002015-10-06T15:32:56.839-05:00Do not be anxious about anything, but in every sit...Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Phillipians 4:6-7 Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00603302841725886274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-74922771068189215242015-10-06T15:32:36.297-05:002015-10-06T15:32:36.297-05:00Do not be anxious about anything, but in every sit...Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Phillipians 4:6-7 Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00603302841725886274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1161071269991065542006-10-17T02:47:00.000-05:002006-10-17T02:47:00.000-05:00Recently I took a class in astronomy and was getti...Recently I took a class in astronomy and was getting alot of distances and times shoved at me. I asked the professor,"Are these distances not arbitrary since we don't even know the speed of light is constant, as well as if the universe is expanding post "big bang" are we not observing light in a curve?" He admitted we don't really know. I have to admit that the class did great damage to any notions I had left of young earth creationism.<BR/><BR/>I have always found the explanations concerning anthropology a bit simplistic, whether they came from creationists of evolutionists. Like how did Hawaiians or other remote island peoples get there? Packing up the family and navigating the Pacific in a crude boat doesn't sound plausible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1158522116068940482006-09-17T14:41:00.000-05:002006-09-17T14:41:00.000-05:00The topic is cosomology at your insistence, not mi...The topic is cosomology at your insistence, not mine. You wanted an answer to Ward's assumptions, and I gave you one. And then you didn't let it go. <BR/><BR/>"So because there is [no firmament] now, you know for a fact that there was none then?"<BR/><BR/>Where did it go? Why would it disappear?<BR/><BR/>"Ever heard of the flood?"<BR/><BR/>Sure, but I don't recall that Scripture says anywhere that the firmament on which the sun and the moon are suspended (v. 14-19) suddenly disappeared when God brought the flood upon the earth.<BR/><BR/>And do I think that Genesis requires our affirmation of a flood on a global scale? No.Dan Dunlaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1158438219891543132006-09-16T15:23:00.000-05:002006-09-16T15:23:00.000-05:00Nothing you mention is contradicted by Genesis 1."...Nothing you mention is contradicted by Genesis 1.<BR/><BR/>"there is no great body of water in the heavens held back by a solid structure called the 'firmament..." <BR/><BR/>So because there is none now, you know for a fact that there was none then? Ever heard of the flood? I guess that was just a local event... The firmament was called heaven. It was the space between the waters above and those below. It is not described as a dome but as open space. <BR/><BR/>Why is the topic now cosmology and not evolution? Is everyone running away from Darwin already?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1158352543927866162006-09-15T15:35:00.000-05:002006-09-15T15:35:00.000-05:00What's there to talk about, John? It is plain as ...What's there to talk about, John? It is plain as the nose on your face that the cosmological description in Genesis One corresponds with how the world would have appeared to someone living in very early anitquity, and NOT AT ALL to the discoveries that have been made in the modern age (e.g. that the earth is round; that the atmosphere is gaseous; that the sun, moon and stars are distant bodies, some millions of light years away; that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun; and that there is no great body of water in the heavens held back by a solid structure called the "firmament," whether dome-shaped or not).Dan Dunlaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1158197037868301872006-09-13T20:23:00.000-05:002006-09-13T20:23:00.000-05:00"The literal sense especially should not be interp..."The literal sense especially should not be interpreted in such a way as would be impossible given the historical and cultural conditions of the sacred writer."<BR/><BR/>On what basis is a literal intepretation of Genesis 1 impossible, given that Moses was divinely inspired? I mean, after all, divine inspiration is the historical and cultural condition of Moses, right? Right? Or did Moses hear it all from some Egyptian magi?<BR/><BR/>"Are we simply saying that 'Moses' adapted ancient cosmology to fit the covenantal history of Israel? Or is that going too far?"<BR/><BR/>*WE* are not saying that, but some are. It is interesting that we began talking about evolution - man evolving from primordial soup -but quickly went right to cosmology - the alleged "dome" over the earth, etc., which now people want not to talk about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1158080560832561742006-09-12T12:02:00.000-05:002006-09-12T12:02:00.000-05:00Dr. D., In fact, I think the Yhawist knew about pl...Dr. D., <BR/><BR/>In fact, I think the Yhawist knew about plate tectonics, although he had to consult with the Elohist on barometrics…; )<BR/><BR/>The proper subjects of revelation are supernatural mysteries whose character it is to transcend every possible historical and cultural milieu. The Trinity, for example, is no more “discoverable” in the modern age than in more primitive or unphilosophical or prescientific ones. Thus, the revelation of such mysteries through the instrumental agency of a human writer assumes, without violence to either his freedom or the truths of revelation, particular historical and cultural limitations. On the other hand, according to St. Thomas, certain “discoverable truths”, such as the existence and the unity of God, are revealed along with and in relation to the proper subjects of revelation (i.e. the “undiscoverable” articles of faith) for the sake of those (the vast majority of people) who are practically prevented from reaching them (the discoverable truths) through unaided reason. I doubt, however, that the biblical account of creation, given its obvious kinship with other ancient near-eastern mythical creation stories, qualifies as one of these ‘preambula fidei'.<BR/><BR/>At the same time, is it correct to say that the Genesis creation stories are allegorical? They may have been interpreted by the Fathers in an allegorical way, but what was the intention of their author. In other words, they must have a literal sense. What is that sense? Are we simply saying that “Moses” adapted ancient cosmology to fit the covenantal history of Israel? Or is that going too far?Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14449969414952273164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1158027787659203502006-09-11T21:23:00.000-05:002006-09-11T21:23:00.000-05:00Whaddya mean, Thomas? The author of Genesis didn'...Whaddya mean, Thomas? The author of Genesis didn't know that the earth was round? :-)Dan Dunlaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1158013087144879782006-09-11T17:18:00.000-05:002006-09-11T17:18:00.000-05:00I think it is vital to sound biblical exegesis to ...I think it is vital to sound biblical exegesis to recognize both divine and human authorship of the sacred text. The literal sense especially should not be interpreted in such a way as would be impossible given the historical and cultural conditions of the sacred writer. This is not a denial of divine inspiration but rather an insistance upon its mysterious reality as opposed to superstitious misconceptions of it.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14449969414952273164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1157942494320062992006-09-10T21:41:00.000-05:002006-09-10T21:41:00.000-05:00My beef isn't with the Bible. My beef is with tho...My beef isn't with the Bible. My beef is with those who misuse the Bible, e.g. Flat-earthers, Geo-Centrists, and so-called Six-day Creationists.Dan Dunlaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1157933163476661552006-09-10T19:06:00.000-05:002006-09-10T19:06:00.000-05:00Anonymous said... Genesis 1:6-7 seems to be more m...Anonymous said... <BR/>Genesis 1:6-7 seems to be more meaningful with a flat-earth model than with a round-earth one. <BR/><BR/>First, the theologian in question said that Genesis literally said that the earth is a flat disc. To say now that this is "more meaningful" is completely arbitrary and begs the question, since in fact it does NOT say this. I could with equal justification say that the text seems more meaningful from a creationist view. At any rate, it says NOTHING about the shape of the earth. <BR/><BR/>lexorandi2 said... <BR/>I agree, Anon, though obviously I'm no flat-earth advocate. The Hebrew for "firmament" implies a hard dome canopy holding back the waters "above" from those "below." Later the narrative states that the heavenly bodies are set in this firmament. This language obviously assumes a different cosmology than what we know today.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, because between then and now we have this incident called THE FLOOD. I guess that belief in a literal worldwide flood is anti-scientific too.<BR/><BR/>LEX-It would seem that the limb Ward is out on is much stronger than John C's. <BR/><BR/>You guys are over-using the word "seems," evidence of uncertainty in my view. Ward either lied about what the Bible says, or doesn't know any better. In either case, you think that he :seems: to be on more sure footing than me? Your beef is not with me but with the Bible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1157847874022533812006-09-09T19:24:00.000-05:002006-09-09T19:24:00.000-05:00I agree, Anon, though obviously I'm no flat-earth ...I agree, Anon, though obviously I'm no flat-earth advocate. The Hebrew for "firmament" implies a hard dome canopy holding back the waters "above" from those "below." Later the narrative states that the heavenly bodies are set in this firmament. This language obviously assumes a different cosmology than what we know today.<BR/><BR/>It would seem that the limb Ward is out on is much stronger than John C's.Dan Dunlaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1157847557833324492006-09-09T19:19:00.000-05:002006-09-09T19:19:00.000-05:00Genesis 1:6-7 seems to be more meaningful with a f...Genesis 1:6-7 seems to be more meaningful with a flat-earth model than with a round-earth one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1157825765601914712006-09-09T13:16:00.000-05:002006-09-09T13:16:00.000-05:00"The only thing I've been able to glean from all o..."The only thing I've been able to glean from all of your verbosity is that you agree with neither the Fathers nor modern science."<BR/><BR/>I allow for creation in an instant, as I noted. There is no science for evolution, so you got me there. Take it up with Karp Popper.<BR/><BR/>"I will concede that Ward steps out on a limb a bit by assuming that an ancient cosmology (i.e. falt earth, domed sky) lies behind the language of Genesis. But he's no more out on a limb than you are in assuming that a modern cosmology (i.e. round earth, gaseous atmosphere, distant universe) lies behind the language of Genesis."<BR/><BR/>First, he puts things into Genesis that aren't there, such as saying that Genesis portrays the earth as a flat disc, which of course it does not. Anyone who would say this is either an ignoramus or a liar. If he needs straw men to make his point, then his argument fails.<BR/><BR/>"john c...please...give it a rest. Your posts are embarassing to read."<BR/><BR/>Why don't you refute anything I said rather than throw stones like a child?<BR/><BR/>"I dont know anything about you but it sure sounds like your parroting certain Presbyterian theologians."<BR/><BR/>Please quote me where I do this and reference the theologians' writings that I am supposedly parroting. You won't do this because it's so easy just to call names like a child.<BR/><BR/>"...as a theologian, I see no reason to think that evolution – as long as it remains a hypothetical account of the origin of species – conflicts with the Christian worldview."<BR/><BR/>Karl Popper said that it doesn't even qualify as hypothesis, let alone a theory. I am in favor of theologians pronouncing on things theological, and scientists sticking to science. Evolution is not science, and the Bible asserts that man was created on one day in an instant. If I preach on that fact I canot go wrong. If I renounce this assertion in the pulpit, I don't belong there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1157641565337811012006-09-07T10:06:00.000-05:002006-09-07T10:06:00.000-05:00This issue – as with virtually every other aspect ...This issue – as with virtually every other aspect of the encounter between faith and modern science – is one which, I believe, could benefit from the Thomistic synthesis of faith and reason. The medium of dialogue between faith and science is philosophy - not exegesis - and too often this discussion lacks philosophical cogency. As Stanley L. Jaki once said to me, we must distinguish between the theory of evolution and the ideology of evolution. In other words, the subject of evolution – if it is true – can only be that part of the Universe traditionally made the subject of natural philosophy – i.e. Aristotle’s mobile being, which is characterized by local motion. Thus biological and other forms of physical evolution are consistent with the general character of the experimental world. Those who argue that the theory of evolution must logically lead to atheism or an assortment of less-than-Trinitarian theisms are not distinguishing well the physical theory from its false philosophical – and analogical – application. <BR/><BR/>Thomistic teleology, contrary to some who would identify it with ID, does not require that a single observable occurrence within the natural order lack an imminent cause. The reason is that nature itself, although material, is primarily form (intelligible order). Materialism and other types of anti-Supernaturalism are ideologies not scientific hypotheses. At the same time, ‘creatio ex nihilo’ is not a scientific hypothesis and is not within the bounds of experimental science – no matter how many big bangs we imagine.<BR/><BR/>So what if my corporeal form has a history on this planet? Is not my soul a special creation? <BR/><BR/>It’s not that I ‘believe’ in evolution. I am not a scientist and such things should not be taken on authority. However, as a theologian, I see no reason to think that evolution – as long as it remains a hypothetical account of the origin of species – conflicts with the Christian worldview.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14449969414952273164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1157591478420926362006-09-06T20:11:00.000-05:002006-09-06T20:11:00.000-05:00Now boys (JC & JB), play nicely. Remember, I cont...Now boys (JC & JB), play nicely. Remember, I control the delete button.Dan Dunlaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1157591398347993082006-09-06T20:09:00.000-05:002006-09-06T20:09:00.000-05:00Thanks, Kay. Do we know each other? I just visit...Thanks, Kay. Do we know each other? I just visited your site. Looks interesting. I'll cruise by for a better look-see later in the week. Cheers!Dan Dunlaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1157586824606767502006-09-06T18:53:00.000-05:002006-09-06T18:53:00.000-05:00Just wanted to say thank you for posting this. Kei...Just wanted to say thank you for posting this. Keith Ward is my all time favorite theologian.<BR/><BR/>I'm currently reading "Pascal's Fire."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1157559949937942702006-09-06T11:25:00.000-05:002006-09-06T11:25:00.000-05:00Theology makes a crucial distinction between crea...Theology makes a crucial distinction between creatio ex nihilo and creatio conitinua. I wouldn't think that any theistic evolutionist would have any problem with the Patristic notion that God created (ex nihilo) everything "in an instant." They'd also agree with the Fathers that the six days are allegorical. <BR/><BR/>The only thing I've been able to glean from all of your verbosity is that you agree with neither the Fathers nor modern science.<BR/><BR/>I will concede that Ward steps out on a limb a bit by assuming that an ancient cosmology (i.e. falt earth, domed sky) lies behind the language of Genesis. But he's no more out on a limb than you are in assuming that a modern cosmology (i.e. round earth, gaseous atmosphere, distant universe) lies behind the language of Genesis.Dan Dunlaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1157515120389341252006-09-05T22:58:00.000-05:002006-09-05T22:58:00.000-05:00Ward: "Nobody believes that the Earth is a flat di...Ward: "Nobody believes that the Earth is a flat disc floating on a great sea of chaos... Yet that is what the Book of Genesis literally says."<BR/><BR/>Again, where is this asserted, ch. & v.? Why did you ignore my first request for ch. & v.?<BR/><BR/>DKD-If you are measuring "wonderful" by how fast your God can create the universe compared with someone else's, then you have a point.<BR/><BR/>The Bible says that God made the earth in six days (yom = day). If God actually made the earth and populated it in an instant, then the Bible is off by six days, an acceptable "error" if the text is meant to be allegorical. The Fathers believed that the six days were allegorical, and that God created the earth in an instant, but none believed that the six days were a wax nose stretchable by x6billion. Or is it x10billion? Or x14billion? I can't keep up with the assured conclusions of modern science.<BR/><BR/>DKD-But God is timeless, so the race to see whose god can complete the universe in a fastest time is irrelevant, theologically speaking.<BR/><BR/>But not biblically speaking. This is only a problem for those who would rather throw the Bible overboard than defend it against The Cultured Despisers of Religion. I am not arguing for the fastest God, but the God of the Bible. All other gods are idols. Right?<BR/><BR/>DKD-I think Ward's point is to say that modern science reveals the vast complexity of the universe as created by God, and, I agree with him here, it is more wonderful than anyone in previous ages could ever have imagined. <BR/><BR/>Gee, and I always thought that the Bible was THE MOST reliable revelation of God. Who woulda guessed that modern science held the trump card over Scripture?! I should think that we start with the Bible, and work backwards, not start with evolutionists, and flush the Bible.<BR/><BR/>>"What is the term for this, creeping pantheism?"<BR/><BR/>DKD-Nope. Good ol' fashion Christian Orthodoxy. As Athanasius would say, God became man that man might become god. <BR/><BR/>Ward says, "the material universe itself [becomes] a sharer in the life of God, as it grows towards its fullness in Christ." The universe is not growing towards fullness, the sons of God are being manifest, bringing the universe to fruition. Ward has his materialistic cart before the covenantal horse. <BR/><BR/>Ward: "...the general Christian belief that the universe, and the evolutionary process as a whole, are indeed designed by a supreme intelligence."<BR/><BR/>Your "favorite modern theologian" begs the question AND erects a straw man. There is no "general Christian belief" in any "evolutionary process," is there? If there is, let's have a few dozen names, and the chs. & vss. for their arguments. If they are the general representatives of the faith, their names oughta be ready at hand.<BR/><BR/>Ward: "Nobody believes that the Earth is a flat disc floating on a great sea of chaos... Yet that is what the Book of Genesis literally says."<BR/><BR/>Why did you ignore my request for ch. & v. for this straw man argument? Can you provide us with one non-snake handling Christian who believes this?<BR/><BR/>Ward: "Modern science originated in a context of Christian belief that God had created the cosmos through reason, through the Logos, and that the human mind could discern the glory of God in the works of creation. It is regrettable in the extreme that some Christians have now abandoned this belief."<BR/><BR/>Please name one Christian who has abandoned this belief, aside from "The Episcopal Church" bishops. And please name one Christian considered to be a founder of "modern science" who believed in evolution - aside from Darwin, to whom Karl Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital, since "natural selection" provided an atheistic basis upon which to erect a godless state.<BR/><BR/>BTW, here are some of the great evolutionists of the recent past: Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, and Pol Pot. Is Ward willing to plight his troth with them? I mean, if evolution is true, then they are almost Christians, right?<BR/><BR/>Evolution is Baal and Molech.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1157432137497976562006-09-04T23:55:00.000-05:002006-09-04T23:55:00.000-05:00Very poetic, but it amounts to deism to me.Very poetic, but it amounts to deism to me.Johnny!https://www.blogger.com/profile/10314962226900234185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1157395964515024102006-09-04T13:52:00.000-05:002006-09-04T13:52:00.000-05:00"More wonderful than doing it in six days, or an i..."More wonderful than doing it in six days, or an instant?"<BR/><BR/>If you are measuring "wonderful" by how fast your God can create the universe compared with someone else's, then you have a point.<BR/><BR/>But God is timeless, so the race to see whose god can complete the universe in a fastest time is irrelevant, theologically speaking.<BR/><BR/>I think Ward's point is to say that modern science reveals the vast complexity of the universe as created by God, and, I agree with him here, it is more wonderful than anyone in previous ages could ever have imagined. <BR/><BR/>"What is the term for this, creeping pantheism?"<BR/><BR/>Nope. Good ol' fashion Christian Orthodoxy. As Athanasius would say, God became man that man might become god.Dan Dunlaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-1157393892248342982006-09-04T13:18:00.000-05:002006-09-04T13:18:00.000-05:00"Nobody believes that the Earth is a flat disc flo..."Nobody believes that the Earth is a flat disc floating on a great sea of chaos... Yet that is what the Book of Genesis literally says."<BR/><BR/>Where?<BR/><BR/>"The argument about creationism in our schools is not really about science, because the creationist theory is based not on scientific study, but on a particular literalistic interpretation of Scripture."<BR/><BR/>In fact, there is virtually no science that supports evolution. It is a religion. <BR/><BR/>Karl Popper (heard of him?) has said, "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."<BR/>-Unended Quest (Glasgow: Fontana, Collins. 1976), p.151.<BR/><BR/>"That God should, over thousands of millions of years, by laws of incredible beauty and simplicity, bring out of the basic matter of the early universe all the complexity of galaxies, planets, living beings and intelligent moral awareness, is truly wonderful."<BR/><BR/>More wonderful than doing it in six days, or an instant?<BR/><BR/>"For a Christian, evolution is not just intelligently designed; it manifests a divinely intended purpose, that the material universe itself should become a sharer in the life of God, as it grows towards its fullness in Christ."<BR/><BR/>What is the term for this, creeping pantheism?<BR/><BR/>"What a grandeur of vision those who cannot accept evolution are bound to miss. How much smaller and more restricted is a God who has only one little planet to worry about, and that not for very long."<BR/><BR/>What Christians believe that God did not create other planets?<BR/><BR/>"God can act in the world, but God's actions cannot in principle be explained by any scientific laws."<BR/><BR/>This is akin to Muslim irrationalism, the koranic implication that God can make a square circle because He is "not bound as the Jews believe." <BR/><BR/>To summarize Popper, science can only deal with the empircal, and cannot pronounce upon what cannot be scientifically disproved. Hence, the question of origins is not one of proper scientific endeavor - at least according to the greatest scientist of his generation.<BR/><BR/>I would add, it is properly a religious consideration only, and particularly one that must be considered in the light of divine revelation, given the limits of science that Popper asserts are necessary. Do you know of any source of divine revelation other than the Bible, including Genesis 1?<BR/><BR/>This is one of your favorite theologians?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com