More on Evolution
For a great discussion on science and it's current bent toward naturalism, read the article by philosopher J.P. Moreland at http://trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000135.cfm.
Also, the folks at Reasons to Believe (reasons.org) have put forth the theory that animal death and ergo, survival of the fittest, always was the case. The Garden was an island of peace and sinlessness and no death. Adam and Eve were kicked out into the rest of the world at the Fall. For more, read their stuff. I don't know if I buy it, but it is interesting.
In response to Dean and computer's bloodthirsty efficiency, I ponder this: If something works, does it make it right or good? After all, abortion of down's syndrome babies does make the gene pool healthier-but is that what God really wants? Is that really the most loving thing? And I suppose we could ask, what would Jesus do?
Also, the folks at Reasons to Believe (reasons.org) have put forth the theory that animal death and ergo, survival of the fittest, always was the case. The Garden was an island of peace and sinlessness and no death. Adam and Eve were kicked out into the rest of the world at the Fall. For more, read their stuff. I don't know if I buy it, but it is interesting.
In response to Dean and computer's bloodthirsty efficiency, I ponder this: If something works, does it make it right or good? After all, abortion of down's syndrome babies does make the gene pool healthier-but is that what God really wants? Is that really the most loving thing? And I suppose we could ask, what would Jesus do?
posted by Rob | 9:53 AM
18 Comments:
Rob,
Moreland's article reads like my recent responses in this blog discussion. (Sorry, Moreland, for such a harsh criticism.) His logic is all over the map. Is the article a discussion of evolution versus special creation or is he talking about a 'sensate' worldview versus a ideational worldview?
Evolution versus creationism is a 'How did it happened' discussion.
Sensate versus ideation is a 'Is there more to the world' discussion.
The 'how it happened' argument is a matter of observables. I think the preponderance of evidence is for an old universe/earth with evolving life forms. I am qualified to be a referee on cosmological and geophysical evidences. I am not qualified to be a referee on biological evidences. If life forms prove to be instantaneous 'special creations', there will be observables that imply special creation truth. If the evidences begin to weigh in special creation directions, then science would try to come up with a physical explanation of special creation ... a daunting task for the scientist. Such a situation might imply a world of ideation because there is an unexplainable instantaneous appearance of animal kinds. But it is not proof of a world of ideation where the creator stepped in miraculously. Some scientist would stubbornly propose that space men brought their farm animals to Earth and the whole evolution process occurred elsewhere in the universe. This explanation has been used for the earliest stages of life (i.e., meteors carrying bacteria to earth).
The 'Is there more' discussion is a different topic. It is also a very old discussion. Plato frames the 'ideation' philosophy to begin the age-long discussion among philosophers. 'Ideation' is a new term for me. A platonist is one who believes in the world of truths 'above' the physical world. Plato's Forms or concepts are the perfect truths. There is a perfect chair form in this platonist world. In this physical world all chairs are just imperfect instantiations of the perfect chair Form. Now platonist positions do not necessarily imply Plato's forms, but they do encompass the belief that morals, justice, truth, etc are real and are from a world 'above' the sense world. Each age seems to have the argument whether there is anything 'above' the sense world.
Plato vs Epicurus
Descartes vs David Hume
Hegel vs Marx
Kierkegaard vs Nietzsche
Young Bertrand Russell vs Old Russell
Platonist philosophers have often discussed the possibility of using reason to discern the 'truth' from above.
A Christian is by definition a platonist. Some theologians think you can use rationalism and revelation to derive moral and theological truths (Thomas Aquinas and Descartes). Some say that there is no path to moral and theological truths from nature and reason, there is only revelation (Augustine, Pascal, and Barth).
Back to Moreland's article. Moreland seems to be suggesting that an evolutionist is necessarily a strict materialist. That is absurd. He has double position which
he assumes to be true;
1. the world of ideation is real
2. we can demonstrate the truth of the ideation world from divine special creation in the sensate world.
He assumes both positions to be necessary for the Christian. #1 is a matter of faith. #2 is suspect on two levels. First, special creation evidences are weak in my opinion. Second, in reality, there is no possible sensate proof of the world of ideation. (Though, there are suspicious suggests in existential experience.)
Vince
Rob,
I feel so proud to be called out by name :)
It's just a tool; as Jon would say, "It's all ones and zeros", just very cleverly put together. In other words, you wouldn't set the software off to solve a problem to find an optimal traction pattern for tires in snowy conditions and have it unexpectedly design a new milk container, it doesn't work that way.
I feel pretty comfortable that everytime I set the system off and running that no moral or ethical issues are being raised by the bits themselves; only how they are used by humans is the question.
Dean
Rob,
Oops. I mis-spoke in the last paragraph of my reply:
"Second, in reality, there is no possible sensate proof of the world of ideation. "
This is my assumption. All philosophical discussion to date seems to conclude that there is not sensate proof of ideation. Another way to put this is ... the world is existential. Human reason and/or scientific empiricism cannot deduce morals or provide proofs of God.
This is the opinion of atheists, but it is also the opinion of some Theists. Karl Barth puts forward that the only way we know anything about God and moral truth is that it is revealed by God to us. The Bible is about God's revelation of Jesus in particular. The revelation of truth can also be our existential conscience, too.
We cannot be deduced with logic or measure with an instrument a proof of the world of ideation. While this is opinion, I must allow a brilliant human the possibility of demonstrating otherwise.
Rob,
nit-picker here...
It's not the down's babies one would theoretically want to abort. I don't have the impression that many down's children grow up and have children of their own. Instead, what would need to be done is to find those whose genome is particularly suseptible to the mutation that leads to downs syndrome...it is those unborn babies that would be up for the ugliness. So, it isn't the down's babies that are of concern to the gene pool, but the parent's who produce down's offspring. To be both nit picky and crude at the same time. No, I'm not proud of this :)
Back to *my* subject, fancy smancy programming...
I hold no fear that my computer will magically gain consciousness. Some people in my field have that fear, but not me, and it isn't even for a "Christian" reason. Roger Penrose, some of you may know, a theoretical physicist, makes some excellent arguments about the nature of consciousness and understanding.
In one of his books, he puts forth a compelling demonstration that "understanding" is something that is different from a purely logical or mathmatical approach, meaning that he isn't worried that computers of today's structure are in any danger of achieving consciousness...my interpretation, not his. His demonstration uses something called a Turning Machine (of Alan Turing fame, a philosopher upon whos work Computer Science takes much from), a TM is just an ideal logic computer. Through the use of this, he demonstrates that given a specific problem to solve and a set of instructions (i.e. a proof), the TM is unable to produce a logical conclusion to this particular problem. However, you and I can look at the results of the TM and conclude what the results of the TM mean...even though the TM can not compute a conclusion. His point, understanding (for this specific example) is beyond classical computations (even including quantum considerations). He argues that we need to deepen our understanding of physics to gain a foothold into the nature of consciousness; he offers some suggestions for pursuit in this direction.
I don't believe I "think" with my spirit, but rather my physical brain. Too many times in the past I have believed "God told me..." or "God impressed upon me..." when it was really just the makeup of my brain that "told me...". I find his arguments worth consideration, I want to know how God created the universe that allowed us to have consciousness. Why are we so afraid to give credit to the brain?
Vince, it is now your turn to discuss the dual nature mind-body/spirit-body/soul-spirit-body/mind-soul-spirit-body problem. You've been dancing around it for the past couple of days, but haven't directly addressed it. I'm waiting...
Dean M.
Rob,
Do you feel like you've created a monster that you no longer control?
Vince
Dean,
You are right. I have talked all around the topic of Mind-Body duality. It is something I am reading about and pondering. There are some faith disturbing aspects that I avoid presently. A bit more reading on the subject is in my future. Presently, I am reading Wittgenstein, who has reportedly demolished the Mind-Body duality. I don't understand what he is saying yet.
However, when have I ever avoided speaking an opinion? Unfortunately, I am intellectually arrogant. I am right until proven wrong. Luckily I am also willing to be corrected. My wife, Kathy, being my main corrector.
I suspect that the Mind-Body dualism is not a Jewish, biblical truth. It has resulted from our blending of Platonist religious views with Christianity after Christians were kicked out of the synagogues. Christians became greek thinkers primarily. During the first centuries of gentile Christianity, Christians strove to limit the greek heresies through council creeds, but clearly the underlying greek worldview has 'contaminated' Jesus' gospel. Plato's "Timeaus" was most influential in creating our current Christian viewpoint. To me, this is a problem. Christianity should be more Jewish.
This being said, I don't know what to replace our mind-body dualism with. Certainly, Jewish views suggest humanity is more of a unity than a duality. ... I am still thinking about this topic in terms of 'What would Jesus think?"
Vince
Survival does not always depend on the best genetic specimen's superior characteristics. Consider the following example about 'Survival of the Fittest' in nature. A large school of fish are swimming in the ocean a shark taking advantage of the opportunity feeds on half the fish. All the fish on the right side of the school are eaten and the ones on the left side live. Were the ones on the left genetically superior to the ones on the right? Or was it just luck?
I think the question is too narrowly focused. What about these ideas about whales snackin' on little fishies...
*Those fish that don't swim around in big, fat, juicy looking meals have a better chance for survival.
*Those fish populations that reproduce with enough offspring and that swim around in big snack packs will survive better than those that don't.
*The whales that overeat on the fish swarms will tend to die off versus those that don't eat up too many fish swarms.
You get the general idea. But, back to computers...
Dean
Dean,
In a strange way you have reinforced the notion of a creator. You believe that computers can not evolve understanding through natural creative efforts. No matter how quick and logical a computer may become, It is still unintelligent or lacks understanding.
Where does understanding come from then? It is my belief that understanding does not come from the physical brain of a person but from the soul of a person. The physical brain carries out the biological functions of the body. Cognotive actions are from the soul-not the spirit. The spirit is only awakened by the Creator. Until then a soul is left to observe the world around it through the natural world and process a conclusion about Its purpose. It is not unlike a computer that can not reach a definite answer only possible solutions. Only when the spirit of a person is awakened can a soul's purpose be found with the aid of the Creator. A soul without a spirit is left to continue in its searching loop and process the natural world. The other option is for it turn off and allow the physical brain to operate on its own.
In short, the natural world can not explain the source of human understanding. It is only explained by the supernatural world. A realm only human understanding can perceive and must accept by faith. An invisible Creator who many of us Christains believe descended in part in the form of Jesus to expose this invisible place to any who want to end this searching loop and find meaning and purpose for our existance.
Mr. Anonymous,
I have no doubt I personally know you, it's okay :)
I did intend to reinforce the notion of a creator with my discussion, but not in the way that you interpreted it. There was a thought in the back of my mind someone might interpret in the way you suggest, but I would not make that same connection. That connection feels like the "God in the gaps" argument, only used in a different context. A future insight could disproove the conclusion.
Since everyone asked, I don't believe understanding, in our layman terms, comes from our soul or spirit, I firmly believe it comes from our physical brain. Lot's and lot's of reasons I believe this, not saying it has to be true, but I feel pretty strongly about this.
The suggestion for a creator that I intended to make is this: That I am self-aware (Descarte) through the use of "mud" (Eccles) demonstrates to me, in part, that a Creator is responsible, it has the fingerprint of design in the structure of the building blocks of the universe.
How about an example of what I mean...
Little over a month ago I got a new Treadmill to wile away the winter months. The box sat in my living room, near the bottom of the stairs for a day or two. Usually, I come down the stairs in auto-pilot mode and don't re-evaluate the path I take, but because the box was in my normal path, I had to break my conditioned response, recognize the box and make a decision to avoid it (plan and execute a new path)...I have a specific memory of it, I recall the box as a change in the environment and making a decision to walk around it; it all all seems like a self-aware process to me.
I have another specific memory: my cat walked around the box too, deviating from his normal path...
A few years ago I was surprised to find it wasn't "obvious" the dual-nature of our existence. No one specifically taught it to me, it was all I had ever known, it has always been implied. Imagine my surprise when I started to get serious about trying to understand the nature of consciousness and the mind-body, spirit-mind, you name it, interaction, that the Jewish Hebrews didn't share that concept, it is, I believe, primarily a Platonic construction that has been carried into Christian tradition (as Vince noted). I am surprised at myself that I have dramatically backed off the dual-nature concept, I almost completely disregard it (and not just because of my simple minded description above).
Another note I would like to make (gotta talk about computers in here somewhere): I don't have any fear my current computer will wake up and start having a conversation with me, but that doesn't mean I don't think a future computer might not! There are some fascinating insights being made into the way the brain works that make me think, maybe, just maybe, in the long off future, that biological manufacturing techniques combined with future insights into the structure of the universe might do something interesting. What Penrose was saying, is that current physics and mathmatical techniques can be shown to be insufficient, but future advances in those, and/or other areas, may change that.
Sure have enjoyed walking all over Rob's little area of the Intarweb :)
Dean
Well, I think it is ok to leave a comment on my own blog, mostly because many people who read it aren't really interested in the evolution think. But I did want to say: Yes, Dean-your nit pick is very true. Thats what I get for shooting out a quick thought w/o thinking about it enough. And Vince, I have seen Moreland shoot down other philosophers pretty easily and have had two classes with him. I'm not sure you can dismiss his arguments so easily...
Rob
Rob,
My disagreement with the article by Moreland that you suggested is:
While Moreland is writing about 'intelligent design' he seems to make the unfortunate suggestion that an evolutionist is necessarily a strict materialist. He implies that the evolutionist is not a Christian and visa versa. It is too often the assumed conclusion of the intelligent design advocates.
Vince
Vince-that may be because he holds the idea of theistic evolution as untenable, as many do. It does have a lot of problems and not many people in either camp adhere to it.
Whoa.
I am beginning to think your Christian circles are pretty small. Perhaps you should read a bit beyond the typical conservative evangelical bookshelf.
I suspect that your stating "theistic evolution as untenable" is a theological statement and not a pronouncement of damnation. I will move forward with this understanding (some would damn the theistic evolutionist).
Is theistic evolution a tenable Christian position?
This is an important discussion beyond citing evidences of evolution or intelligent design. .... Is theistic evolution worthy of a pronouncement of anathema? Should a new creed of orthodoxy be brought forward in a new "General Council of the Church" to define the limits of Christendom?
"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, and of all creatures by special creation."
hmmm. What do you think? Is it a necessary addition to the Nicene Creed?
I think not. The Catholic Church just accepted theistic evolution as a tenable position. But one must also recognize that science is not truth ... it is science. The "theistic" of "theistic evolution" is the only truth. Current theory of life and the universe will always change. That is science.
Again. Is theistic evolution untenable?
Vince
Vince-ouch! I hope you don't think that I think you deserve damnation! (at least not for your theology. Now politics......) I was merely suggesting a reason for Moreland's apparant assumption that evolution implies naturalism. Certainly I know people with your view are out there, but they just don't seem to be major players in the national debate. The Catholic Church may state a position, but they don't seem to be major force in this arena like they are in gay marriage, abortion, etc (did the Pope say it? If not, who?).
As far as narrow evangelical circles, I admit I don't have time to read all that is out there and I try to keep up with the most well known voices, e.g. Dawkins,Gould, William Lane Craig, Moreland, Behe, the folks at Reasons to Believe, the Discovery Institute, etc. These are the people on the news, college campuses, and the mainstream publishing world. I'm sure there are many worthwhile writers out there. But I am an evangelical, solo scriptora. So I tend to read in those circles.
Please forgive me if I seem too narrow-it certainly is not my intent!
Rob,
I also apologize for my apparent tone. I did not intend to write a polemic, but my last post sounded a bit harsh. I know you read widely ... maybe I could recommend a couple of non-evangelical works. I have also put Moreland on my current 'must read' list -- ("Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview").
I now comment (as I always do) on Moreland's apparent assumption as stated in your last post:
"Moreland's apparent assumption that evolution implies naturalism."
Does God's action necessarily imply "NOT naturalism" (supernaturalism)? I know that you would not say this ... but I will belabor the point.
Counter examples to naturalism == God's inaction:
Psalm 139:13 says - "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."
We ascribe the miracle of conception through birth to God but do not deny that it happens in the material world as a "natural miracle". This bit of God's amazing action is a miracle that we can study with a microscope ... literally. It is our belief that recognizes the truth of God's action even though the action is truly a miracle within naturalism. It is the athiest's belief that there is no god behind naturalism.
I also suggest that the Creation story of Genesis would appear almost secular to the ancient reader. Genesis must be compared to the creation stories against Babylonian, Greek, Hindi, Canaanite, and other pagan stories that have an abundance of gods and lesser deities involved "In the Beginning". The pagan world is a the body of a god, the horizon is another god, the sky another, etc.
Genesis wipes away the multitude of gods with "In the Beginning was God". God creates an inert universe that is apart from deity. Then God speaks "let there be ... and it was." God speaks, "let the earth bring forth plants ... and it does."
All the sudden the earth, sky, and heavens are secular. The world is material ... as in materialism. They are not filled with the multitude of gods. The Most-High God just speaks ... God doesn't get "his hands dirty". It seems that the earth itself 'brings forth things' at God's command.
The Genesis creation exudes naturalism rather than supernaturalism in the ancient mind. Today's evangelical sees supernaturalism rather than naturalism.
Naturalism even in our time seems to be the way God works 99.9999% of the time. I suggest that special creation is never seen today, but natural evolution mechanism are observed! God is behind naturalism in a real way and it is evidenced every day. Special creation is not! This is indeed curious! (Enough with exclamation points!)
Thomas Aquinas ties together naturalism and God's action in his 'governance' proof of God.
"The planets and other objects are dumb (no mind). How do they know where to go on their paths? There must be a God to tell them."
One cannot say "Gravity tells the planets how to move." Gravitational Force? What is that? Two masses exert a force upon each other? How does the the sun and the earth communicate a force to each other? That was a big question until Einstein's General Relativity. Einstein now says "the Sun's mass warps space and the earth just moves in a straight line in this warped space." But what is mass? And how does it warp space?
Physics must always invoke a quantity that remains undefined. In other words, there is always an interface between physics and
metaphysics that allows speculation ... or faith.
This does not mean that the supernatural always works in repeatable cause-effect naturalism. Most likely there are truly supernatural events such as the creation of the image of God in humanity, prophecy, burning-bush, God in the flesh, Jesus's resurrection, our future resurrection.
Supernaturalism and naturalism ... think clearly on the division. The dividing line may not always be that simple.
Vince
Vince says: "clearly the underlying greek worldview has 'contaminated' Jesus' gospel." And at several points claims that Xty is clearly platonic.
Historically, this is a much contended issue. For the best recent treatment, see Mark Edwards recent "Origen against Plato" monograph, a brilliantly witty piece that goes straight at your claim, based on much study of primary Alexandrian texts (including, of course, Origen).
Anyhow, the upshot of his book is to seriously undermine the solidity of the connection b/t Greek philosophy and Xn theology. His argument is not that the two were not in dialogue, but just that the Xn theologians involved in that dialogue were keenly aware of an is/is not tension w/ Greek philosophy the whole way--even, and perhaps especially, Origen, who gets accused of being one of the worst Platonizers of all. There's another good, older study called "Xn Faith and Gk Ph'y" that makes the same point, but less powerfully.
Oh, and Hello Vince! Nice to chat! I've not seen you since the Kierkegaard course
Hello MatSlacker,
The Kierkegaard course was great. It got me started on a broader reading of philosophy. My uneasiness with evangelical Christianity has slowly come into focus as I continued reading ancient texts (Greek philosophers and Church Fathers and later writings).
It is fabulous to see new insights into the Gospels and Paul's letters as one contrasts and compares with contemporary thought and thought pictures in Greek literature. A similar insight is gained if one contrasts ancient literature with the Old Testament (i.e., Illiad and Joshua for instance). I am not giving up my beliefs and understandings about Yahweh. If anything, I am refining them.
--------------------------------
I agree that the Church Fathers were keenly aware of the "tension w/ Greek philosophy". However, the tension is still with us. We have lost sight of the struggle because we do not read classic literature anymore. Early believers struggled because they lost sight of the Jewish community.
We, as evangelicals, still dabble in the spirit of the same heresies that the councils fought against. The Creeds are created specifically to limit the Greek rationalization of Jewish Christianity. But there are more subtle 'Greek thoughts' that were embraced simple because the Jewish presence was gone in the second century. Here are several:
1. Flesh and the world are evil.
These are thoughts that both Paul and John use as they talk to the gentile believers. Greeks had very definite ways to think about these words. Greek philosophers (stoics, platonists, etc.) think, "Evil matter weighs us down. Death will release the righteous man to float up to the heavens. The world is made of evil matter. The heavens are of the spirit." Plato's dialogues have long sections that Paul uses in paraphrase in his letters (Corinthians and Romans).
Look at Socrates' words to his friends before he dies (Apology, I think).
Both Paul and John use "Flesh" and "world" differently than the stoics and platonists. The differences are important. Paul would agree that my body is a good creation of God. So one must know that he is communicating something different than matter is evil ... sex is evil ... etc. Christians have long struggled with thoughts about our evil flesh (sex, etc). Jewishness (Paul and John too) would say the world and God's creation is GOOD and VERY GOOD. The early creeds tried to protect against this 'matter world is evil' teaching by saying that God created the heaven and the earth, but the greek tendencies to despise the world and our flesh remains in Christianity.
Augustine was probably the most positive Church Father when discussing sex. He basically said that it is not evil to
have sex, just don't enjoy it (City of God). The pleasure factor made it evil. He felt that in the garden Adam and Eve used their rational mind when they had sex. They were not enticed by their animal passions and pleasures. This has to do with another greek position that saw us as animal (passions) and spiritual (reason).
2. Our reason is what makes us like God.
Our reasoning is our God-likeness. This was embraced whole-heartly by all the gentile Christian writers (Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Thomas, Descartes, ...). God's spirit is being and reason. I don't think we can hold this anymore. Does Alsheimer's Disease make someone no longer the image of God (human)? I think Jewish thought is more subtle on what the image of God is.
3. The focus of my righteousness is on what the individual does.
This is Platonist and Stoic and Epicurean. Nearly all factions of Greek philosophy agree on maintaining personal righteousness through self-control as defined by thoughtful philosophy and wisdom. The great "Golden Mean". It is identical to what the Pharisees say but as defined by observance to the Jewish Law.
The Desert Fathers ran away with the Greek view of righteousness by practicing self-denial of pleasure because it was evil. Again read the first several dialogues of Plato to see this philosophy of righteousness. This is self-righteous in the best sense possible. It is the use of wisdom to live properly. But, it is not Jesus's view of righteousness!
Jesus's Gospel stands against the individual as the owner of his righteousness. Rather he will say that it is good to have personal self-control and good habits, but relationships and community action are the keys when it comes to good, evil and righteousness.
"It is good to tithe your mint, dill, and cumin. But don't forget justice, mercy, and love for God!"
We are concerned about personal righteousness. "Don't do this. Do this. He sins because he does this." Many believe that Jesus has given us an new law. No! He reminds the Jew that the Law is not about personal righteousness but about community shalom. Righteousness should be "I forgive you. Will you forgive me? Can I help you? You are my enemy ... what can I do for you?"
Nearly all of Western philosophy and theology is concerned about personal being. Martin Buber (Jewish philosopher) criticizes western philosophical thought as "I-it" thinking. He tries to communicate a more Jewish approach that he calls "I-Thou". "I-Thou" is his expression of the Jewish Shalom community thinking. I-it Christianity says, "Jesus has restored my righteousness through his death on the cross and now I have to maintain a life of personal integrity as God lives in me." Personal integrity is a good thing. Personal bad habits are useless and destructive. It is hating your neighbor or not forgiving your neighbor that is sinful ... evil.
----------------------
The Greek rationalistic, individualistic approaches that Western Christianity has embraced have always been a problem in Christianity ever since we left the synagoge. God must have his reasons, but it is time to look behind the Greek-speak that Paul and John uses to see their Messiah's Gospel. They are not teaching Greek-Speak to the Gentiles, They are teaching a Jewish Messiah by using greek words and though patterns.
----------------------
Note that I do not cast out Origen, Augustine, etc as heretics. I just say that they are embedded in a gentile community that lost its Jewish connection. They cannot see their Greek-Roman-Western culture as different from the Jewish Shalom Culture that Jesus was teaching from.
I thrill with these great thinkers of Christianity (Augustine, Thomas, Pascal, Kirkegaard, ...) but I have to recognize the I-it thinking and its inadequacies in
our Christian community. My uneasiness with Evangelical Christianity has to do with the embracing of Republicanism, Ann Rand economics, self-reliant individualism, anti-earthism. These are the results of the worst of western philosophy ... not Christianity.
-----------------------------------------
I would guess that Mark Edwards is trying to put Origen back within the circle of true believers. I don't mind that, but Origen is clearly a pupil of Clement of Alexandria, who blended stoicism and Christianity without reservation. Origen was more thoughtful and forgiving of other thinkers than Clement. Origen did the same thing I do with Science. That is, try and reconcile the best thinkers of the day with the Gospel. I (he) must try to adapt the thinkers to the gospel rather than the Gospel to the thinkers.
Sorry for the length. I get carried away.
I will look at Mark Edwards monograph. I could recommend a brilliant survey book: "The History of Christian Thought" by Jonathan Hill.
Other 'History of " books carry too much of the author's viewpoint (i.e., Paul Tillich's, Adolf von Harnack's, Etienne Gilson's). Though Gilson's "The Unity of Philosophical Experience" was good. Hill's book is better. Hill does an excellent job of presenting a readable history. Of all the book's I have read in the last 5 years, it is the best!!
For a return to Jewish understanding, I suggest reading the New Testament Commentary by David Stern, a messianic Christian. He may have other books also.
Post a Comment
<< Home