LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2019, Page 252

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

252

II. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

How do the following comments reflect aspects of moralistic therapeutic deism?

Session 4: Philosophical Issues (Chapter 3, pages 72–97)

“Make this final declaration with me … ‘I declare that I am blessed!’ If you’ll use your words to
declare victory and not defeat, you’ll see God do amazing things, and I believe you’ll live the
abundant, overcoming, faith-filled life that He has in store.’” 24
Disguised in the secular language of psychotherapy, the search for the sacred has turned sharply
inward—a private quest. The goal, over the last forty years, has been variously described as
'peace of mind,' 'higher consciousness,' 'personal transformation' or-in its most banal
incarnation—a 'self-esteem.'...In this environment, many searching Americans flit from one
tradition to the next, tasting now the nectar of this traditional wisdom, now of that. But, like
butterflies, they remain mostly up in the air. 25
In Session 4, Philosophical Issues, we will examine worldviews and ideas that arise from
ideologies outside of science, ideas that Christians can or should reject. We will also see that
Christianity actually provides key principles that support science.

“If ever there was a slamming of the door in the face of constructive investigation, it is the word
miracle. To a medieval peasant, a radio would have seemed like a miracle. All kinds of things
may happen which we by the lights of today’s science would classify as a miracle just as
medieval science might a Boeing 747 … Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly
you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific—really scientific—
credibility.” 26
The above comment suggests that a Christian cannot be a good scientist. Such opinions arise out
of ideologies that are outside of science, and Christians can and should reject them. Christianity,
however, provides many assumptions that are agreeable with good science. There is no reason
for a Christian scientist to divorce faith from scientific work.
Philosophical problems for the scientific vocation
(In Christ, 72)

Responsive Reading of Psalm 96

“Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith has conducted the most substantial study of emerging
adults and published the results for 18–23 year olds in his book Souls in Transition. His findings
offer a stark challenge to the church: Is it true that ‘the teachings of science and religion often
ultimately conflict’? More than two thirds of Smith’s respondents agreed. Would they say, ‘My
views on religion have been strengthened by discoveries of science’? Well more than half (57
percent) disagreed.” 27
As indicated in the survey results mentioned above, many people today believe that science and
religion “ultimately conflict.” As a result of the Enlightenment, people increasingly came to see
human reason as the judge of all things. Behind this idea were two assumptions—that human
reason is not seriously affected by sin and that human judgment has authority over Scripture.
“The combination of these two assumptions leads to the idea that reason is the best instrument
for distinguishing truth and error in Scripture. And in science, it led to the view that a scriptural
faith provides no guidance for the scientist. Reason thus becomes the only judge both of God’s
Word and of God’s world.” (73)
Read Genesis 6:5, Mark 7:20–23 and James 1:14–15 and 2:10. What do these verses tell us
about the full reality of sin and the corruption of the human heart and mind? Read John 12:48,
Acts 13:46, Hebrews 4:12–13, and 2 Peter 3:14–18. What do these verses have to say about the
authority of Scripture over human reason? What happens when human judgment “twists”
Scripture or “thrusts it aside”?

24
Joel Osteen, I Declare: 31 Promises to Speak Over Your Life (Philadelphia: Running Press, 2014), 188.
25
Kenneth Woodward, Newsweek (November 1994), 62, quoted in Michael Horton, “Are Churches Secularizing
America?” Modern Reformation 17:2 (March/April 2008), available at
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=917.

Richard Dawkins, quoted in David Van Biema, “God vs. Science,” Time (November 5, 2006) at
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html.
Greg Cootsona, “When Science Comes to Church,” Christianity Today (March 2014), at
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/when-science-comes-to-church.html.
26
27

17

18

The elevation of human reason encouraged the development of ideologies or worldviews that are
hostile to the Christian faith or in tension with it—materialism, scientism, methodological
naturalism, the non-overlapping magisteria model and parascience. Thoughtful Christian
scientists can resist these worldviews.

Methodological Naturalism (In Christ, 81):

Materialism (In Christ, 74):

Naturalism is a worldview that denies the existence of God, the soul and objective moral values.
Methodological naturalism, however, permits scientists to believe in God, angels and other
supernatural things, but within the field of science they must act as if naturalism is true and that
there are no supernatural things. Methodological naturalism argues that since God and souls have
free will, and a scientist cannot predict what a free being might do, science should study only
material things that behave in regular ways. According to methodological naturalism, any appeal
to God is a “science stopper” that might allow a “God of the gaps” explanation in a particular
area of study—that is, if we say that God did something, then there is nothing more to be said.

“The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important
that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.” 28
A worldview is an account of the world that involves metaphysical (supernatural, intangible or
abstract) questions such as these: What is real? How do we know? How should we live?
Materialism is a worldview that makes two metaphysical claims—that what is physical defines
the boundaries of what exists and that there cannot be anything independent of what is physical.
Materialism, therefore, denies the existence of God and the human soul and often denies
objective moral values.
Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Is science looking for God? Is it actually
capable of detecting His presence? The investigation of a windowless room will not provide
evidence against the existence of the sun because such an investigation is not capable of
discovering the sun. “To the extent that much of science restricts itself to secondary causes
within nature, it is incapable of making pronouncements on transcendent matters like God, the
soul, and objective moral values” (78).
Scientism (In Christ, 78):
Scientism asserts that materialistic science is the only means of knowing what is real. If science
can only discover the material, then immaterial entities (such as God and the soul) are
unknowable. But scientism is not science. Scientism is a philosophical claim about science.
Actual science requires abstract, immaterial things such as numbers and mathematical relations;
even scientific propositions are abstract, and not physical, entities. No one could live as if
scientism is true. We deal with people each day, and we assume that these people are rational
persons with free will and moral responsibility, that is, they are not purely material objects.
Scientists themselves make use of concepts such as numbers, truth and logical implications. Such
concepts are not material things. The philosophical claim of scientism is opposed to a Christian
worldview. Scientism is incompatible with the biblical teaching that man has a natural
knowledge of God.
Read Rom. 1:19–20, Rom 2:14–15 and Ecc. 3:11. What natural knowledge do human beings
have about God? People have an awareness of their souls, even though souls are not material.
Read Matt. 10:28 and Matt. 16:26. What does the Lord Jesus say about body and soul?

28

There are attempts to suggest that Christians can accept both scientism (in the field of science)
and their Christian worldview (in other aspects of life). One of them is “methodological
naturalism” and the other is “NOMA.”

Methodological naturalism is not a universal scientific method because it does not apply in all
fields of science. For example, in forensic science, archaeology or studies of the origin of the
universe, scientists must consider a range of possible explanations. In some circumstances, an
intelligent cause might actually be the better explanation. The study of the “fine-tuning” of the
laws of nature for intelligent life or the investigation of miracle claims may also refer to an
intelligent cause.
When considering intelligent design, “some cautions are in order. Inferring the existence of a
super-human, intelligent cause is not the same as inferring that this cause is God” (86). However,
inferring an intelligent cause is not unscientific. The inference might be mistaken, or shown later
to be mistaken, but that is true of scientific inferences in general. In addition, some things, such
as the origin of the universe or the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, are poorly explained by
causes within nature and may best be explained by a supernatural cause.
Methodological naturalism is a useful rule in many areas of science, but it is not a valid principle
in every area of science. “Thoughtful Christians who hope to present scientific evidence to
support their claim of faith that we live in a designed world in which God also intervenes should
not be deterred by methodological naturalism from making that case” (91).
The NOMA Model (In Christ, 91):
The NOMA model claims that Christians can accept both scientism and a Christian worldview.
NOMA stands for non-overlapping magisteria, or non-overlapping spheres of teaching authority.
According to this view, the authority of science and religion do not overlap, so religion cannot
make claims about the knowledge of the natural world and science cannot make claims about
religion. However, NOMA’s advocate, scientist Stephen Jay Gould, did in fact make claims
against religion, calling human beings “a wildly improbable evolutionary event” (92). He
actually believed in one way overlapping magisteria, that is, he believed that there is an overlap
from science into religion, but not from religion into science.

Richard Dawkins, quoted in Biema, http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html.

19

2019 Convention Workbook

20