I, too, hold Kaiser and Waltke in high esteem, and don’t (yet) see how what either of them has written anything that mitigates against a sequential reading, in substance. I’ll dig up some quotes to show why, within the next few days, but probably post them at the other topic thread.
I’ve really enjoyed listening(?), reading your thoughts on how to get at what we can say Genesis is saying from looking at the nuances of the text. I seem to remember seeing that you are publishing a book with a geologist or paleontologist on something related to scripture and time or something to that effect. I’d be very much interested in getting my hands on that, please keep us informed as it gets closer to publication. Also, if you have any journal articles that are working out the ideas that will be in the text, I’d be greatly interested.
I think this is the crux of the matter here and a reason why we need more language guys joining the conversation. I’ve found that the exegetes (even in my home denomination of LCMS) are much more comfortable with ambiguity than the systematicians. The equivalent would be like the scientist in his/her profession versus the science popularizers (I think this relates to the Dawkin’s thread as well). The problem with ambiguity is that it isn’t sexy – it doesn’t have quite that polemical bite that sells books to a larger non-specialized audience. It should also cause us pause with the models we put forward and/or work within.
Anyway, @deuteroKJ has made clear that he is looking at the range of options available to conservative Christians in dealing with Genesis 1 & 2, while @Ronald_Cram is pushing a particular viewpoint. My question, and as the moderators can attest I get into these conversations late so haven’t accurately digested all that has happened during the course of this thread or the one it broke from!, @Ronald_Cram, what would it take to shift your position on your model? Perhaps not falsify or put you in a position to given it up, but shift it in a direction that is not what you currently hold?
1 Like
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I’ve appreciated everyone’s interaction, even when we’ve hit a brick wall. I think everyone is acting in good faith.
Yes, geologist Gregg Davidson of Ole Miss U., who has been in this faith/science space for a while (as @swamidass knows well). Will do on giving heads up, though we didn’t get as much done this summer as planned! Since this is not an overly academic book, there won’t be lead-in journal articles. Though I plan to do some of the academic nitty gritty after the book is done.
Very true. This is a typical distinction between biblical theology (my field) and systematic theology. Our task is to (a) let every voice and every text have it’s due, so the tensions/differences often show themselves more, and (b) relentlessly consider the text in its own context (which is why human author/audience is more pronounced). However, for those of us who are evangelical, we also recognize the value of historical and systematic theology. I consider all these sub-disciplines as Accountability Partners. We’re all walking around the elephant and examining ir from different (limited) angles.
My wife disagrees about the sexy part 
Ah, yes, guys in my field tend to be weary of popular apologetics b/c we’re always saying, “but, but, have you considered such-and-such” and “you need a longish footnote to tease that out.” About 1.5 weeks ago, I gave a 2-hour lecture at a local church (not my own) on the interface of faith & science. I was worried that my cautious approach would disappoint those wanting some red meat. Surprisingly, it was well received.
I remember getting a royalty check for under $20. My wife said, “Thanks for taking care of us, honey.”
2 Likes
Couldn’t agree more, it is just that I rarely see the interdisciplinary or, perhaps, interspeciality(?) conversation made aware to the laity. Sometimes, I think that a lot of “issues” in science and religion/theology could be overcome through a better education of the laity in terms of how “theology” (and “science” works as a discipline (not necessarily correcting their beliefs). Of course, I’m a philosopher, so I’m always looking at the bigger picture and the tensions associated with bigger pictures.
Extrapolating from your elephant example, the picture gets even more difficult as other disciplines become involved. This is more germane to the focus of this forum (and I take this particular thread), how might the knowledge you bring – from a specific discipline in conversation with other disciplines within your field (which will differ from say the Lutheran/Catholic/Reformed/etc… equivalents) – to questions of science, which has its own nested hierarchy of intra- and interdisciplinary relationships. The complications that arise are truly staggering!
Was this recorded? I’d love to have a listen on the relationship between faith and science from someone who’s specialty is OT languages. In my interactions with church talks, I’ve found that the laity (even into the high school and junior high) will step up their game if you let them – we simply do not often let them!
Nice, as a professional philosopher and a father of four, I suppose that we are lucky to have found those odd-balls that will put up with our ambiguous musings.
4 Likes
Just wrote a blog post on this. Curious your thoughts.
2 Likes
Personally, I am quite used to ambiguity, and too often see what I see as legitimate questions squelched by someone’s tried and true version of orthodoxy.
Well, since good theology is a conensus seeking endeavor, at its best, I have come to 1) welcome unusual questions 2) question the usual assumptions 3) hold paradoxes in creative tension as probably not unresolvable, and 4) pay really close attention to the text, in context, as I examine it with as much culturally relevant information as I can find.
Would that there were more lay-focused popularizers than the relatively small stable of scholars known for that now.
I do treasure their work, along with that of the linguists, and delight to discover the presence and meaning of idioms, and paranomasia (wordplay) in the text.
There are so many more available colors for the palette of interpretation than are often appreciated.
Thanks, @deuteroKJ , for your own comments and artbrush-wielding.
Fortunately, the “elephant” was thoroughly involved in the writing of this particular book!
1 Like
Yes! This is what I’m currently working on in my teaching. This last semester I had a group of freshman science majors go through Alister McGrath’s Enriching Our Vision of Reality: Theology and the Natural Sciences in Dialogue. It was a very hard book for them to read/slog through but several wrote in the course evaluations they had never thought about how theology and science work or could be different ways of looking at the world (different methods, different questions). Most just thought of science and theology as either at war over the same territory or mutually exclusive.
I am hoping to use critical realism as a way of helping undergraduate science students get a better “big” picture view.
3 Likes
Good question. Truthfully, the evidence could come from either direction - either a new understanding of the text or new evidence from science. Right now I read the text of Genesis 1 as clearly being a straightforward historical narrative of God’s steps in forming and filling planet earth. I think the evidence for this position is clear and straightforward, but if someone could point me to a position that is respectful of the text and preserves the intent of the divine and human authors, then I would certainly look at it and if it was strong enough I would change my position.
Alternatively, if the evidence from science was such that it became impossible to interpret Genesis 1 as I do, then I would l have to search for another interpretative framework.
As I said earlier, modern science fits the straightforward historical narrative remarkably well. I am working on an OP for a new thread that will go through this.
2 Likes
My friend from the RTB Seattle chapter gave a pretty good talk along those lines, that you might enjoy, @Ronald_Cram .
See his YouTube video of the presentation here:
I am curious, how does one know the intent of the divine author? My understanding is that we can use lots of methods to try to understand a human authors intent, but I have a hard time seeing how I could parse out divine intent. Wouldn’t it always at best be a (educated) guess?
1 Like
That would, indeed, be an impossible task unless the divine Author intended to be understood. God has lots of good resources at His disposal to accomplish that, I’m guessing we’d agree? And, to some extent, maybe we’re meant to keep guessing about some things; that’s why a trusting orientation is such a necessary requisite: this is about a relationship, not just settled intellectual knowledge. Tentativity is our FRIEND! : )
Picture posted by a friend on FB:
I think we would use many of the same methods. In addition, we also have the Bible we can use to help us determine divine intent.
I agree that the digital realm offers new aspects to the traditional academy that haven’t been fully utilized yet. In fact, here is a post at a philosophy blog I follow where they are discussing related issues.
I’ve been a Luddite for most of my grad school and professional career – no twitter, no facebook, no instagram, no etc… – I read blogs, but rarely engage in the forum exchanges as they seemed so pointless, by which I mean rarely helping the conversation. I’m obviously changing my views about this as I spend more time here. I’ve yet to venture into other forums.
My professional career is more about educating undergraduates than publishing papers. Regardless, I do see the forum as an avenue to work out ideas (good and bad) for even someone who is more a teaching faculty.
I also like the idea that any conversation on science/religion must involve the non-specialists. One of my favorite thoughts form C.S. Lewis comes from his reflection on preparing for the lectures that became Mere Christianity (I’d have to dig to find the reference). He said something to the affect that he had prepared all these professional lectures, but when he got into conversation with the people he was about to lecture, their questions were not his questions. That is something to always keep in mind and something that I think the digital forum may help keep in check.
Also, bringing the thoughts together in DOI’s, where perhaps, non-specialists end up being quoted in professional work, whether popular or other, I think is also really cool. It may also help bridge that divide that is the academy and, ultimately, the people/public we work for (whether you are at a public or private institution)!
For the professionals, and I think more to what you quoted from my last post, I’m not sure that we have a good grasp as to how specialties within our own disciplines relate together, let alone across disciplines. We really need to think carefully about what interdisciplinary research looks like and is carried out. I think much of the struggles I’ve read through on this forum relate to this. In that way, I do find much value to the Perils of Digital Dialogue, although not in the way you may have meant in your blog post, as one really does get real-time push back. This push back is coming from all sorts of professional and non-professional backgrounds. If a way forward, perhaps your “fifth voice”, emerges, then I think it will be a clue as to how interdisciplinary work functions academically and good conversation/argument functions publicly. There is no hiding behind disciplinary lines here!
Awesome, I hadn’t seen that McGrath work yet, but is right up my alley. Yet another book to add to the ever expanding list!
We do something similar at my institution. We are trying to establish ourselves as a Lutheran Liberal Arts College that hasn’t lost its Lutheran soul. Here is a link to our Enduring Questions and Ideas Curriculum that introduces students to a broader conversation about the disciplines than is usually experienced at other sorts of universities.
Also, please don’t judge the program by the quality of the website – as you’ll are probably aware, website design is out of our (faculty) control, and navigating these beasts is darn near impossible!
@Ronald_Cram I am assuming that demarcation and thresholds of evidence and Bayesian analysis is in play here, but how do you protect yourself from this being too broad to be meaningful? It seems like one could always jump back and forth between the “directions” to save whatever model/theory/hypothesis they wanted? You mention the evidence form scripture and the evidence for science, but how do you judge/decide when you have enough to warrant the change?
I also see that this is something that you may be tackling in the OP you are preparing, so I’ll gladly wait until then if this is the case.
Cheers!
I suppose I would do it the same way you would. I would use critical thinking, logic, Bayesian or other probability analysis and common sense. Isn’t that how you would do it?
I have completed the new OP for the new thread, but for some reason it will not let me post it in the Conversation category. Where should I post it?
Wow, that is impressive. I am envious 
Try again now. Does it work?
Fair enough, but it sounds like you have thought about this for a while. I’m asking about what the mechanics of it look like. The assumption is that it is rational to switch from position A to B based upon evidence from either theology or science or perhaps some combination of both. Yet, this implies that you have some sort of threshold or way of adjudicating between the different outcomes or way evidence is weighed in…
…that is reached indicating when it is okay (or rational) to switch.
For instance, the threshold had not been reached throughout your conversations with @deuteroKJ. You have been pushing back on him for various reasons which may be true, but it prompted my early questions about what it would take to change one’s mind and the follow up as to how that actually works in practice or in theory.
1 Like