4 thoughts on “Podcast: The Terrible Trap of Talking About God”
Brian Midmore
Re Dawkins. I was listening to Tom Wright recently and he made an interesting point. He has noticed that the prevailing philosophy of the west today is essentially Epicurian. Epicurianism saw the Gods as distant and not significantly involved with the affairs of men. Thus everything that happens (including creation) occurs by chance uninfluenced by the gods. The first Greek evolutionists were Epicurians. Modern scientific gradualistic evolutionary theory sits very easily with Epicurian philosophy. Dawkins therefore reads Evolutionary theory as affirming his Epicurian outlook.(For Dawkins God is so remote he has ceased to exist) Evolution is true so Epicurianism is true and a Judeo-Christian theistic view is therefore false. To answer this Christians adopt 2 approaches: 1. Evolution is not true(hard to prove when chatting with a friend over coffee!) 2. Evolution may well be true but it can fit quite happily within a Judeo-Christian theist framework. I suggest that 2 is the way forward.
Yes it's often said that the real clash is not between science and faith. The clash is between naturalism and faith - science can fit under either heading.
It's all about focusing attention on the God we're running away from - Paul's argument in Romans 1 is key, and C S Lewis, for example, in his first few chapters of 'Miracles', shows how quickly we can employ (or miss-use) reason to miss what's really going on in life and thereby skirt truth. When evaluated properly, notes Lewis, issues such as evolution become footnotes to what really matters - is reality about naturalism or supernaturalism? Reality is, as Lewis (and Paul) argues, about the supernatural within the natural (the 'natural', when properly examined and evaluated, is miraculous). The problem, of course, is there's nothing harder to face than a broken relationship.
Re Dawkins. I was listening to Tom Wright recently and he made an interesting point. He has noticed that the prevailing philosophy of the west today is essentially Epicurian. Epicurianism saw the Gods as distant and not significantly involved with the affairs of men. Thus everything that happens (including creation) occurs by chance uninfluenced by the gods. The first Greek evolutionists were Epicurians. Modern scientific gradualistic evolutionary theory sits very easily with Epicurian philosophy. Dawkins therefore reads Evolutionary theory as affirming his Epicurian outlook.(For Dawkins God is so remote he has ceased to exist) Evolution is true so Epicurianism is true and a Judeo-Christian theistic view is therefore false. To answer this Christians adopt 2 approaches: 1. Evolution is not true(hard to prove when chatting with a friend over coffee!) 2. Evolution may well be true but it can fit quite happily within a Judeo-Christian theist framework. I suggest that 2 is the way forward.
Yes it's often said that the real clash is not between science and faith. The clash is between naturalism and faith - science can fit under either heading.
Great post, Glen!
It reminds me of Bo Giertz's "The Hammer of God".
Where the young pastor tells the old pastor that he has "given his heart to Jesus".
The old pastor looks at him and says, "what would he want with that?" And then goes on to explain just how it is that God works in choosing people.
Great, classic piece of Christian work that sets out to unravel the pietistic self will that is always so prevalent in the church.
It's all about focusing attention on the God we're running away from - Paul's argument in Romans 1 is key, and C S Lewis, for example, in his first few chapters of 'Miracles', shows how quickly we can employ (or miss-use) reason to miss what's really going on in life and thereby skirt truth. When evaluated properly, notes Lewis, issues such as evolution become footnotes to what really matters - is reality about naturalism or supernaturalism? Reality is, as Lewis (and Paul) argues, about the supernatural within the natural (the 'natural', when properly examined and evaluated, is miraculous). The problem, of course, is there's nothing harder to face than a broken relationship.