tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post1245728939751783124..comments2023-10-31T07:23:17.922-04:00Comments on The Theos Project: Birth, Family, and the sensus divinitatisJonathan Erdmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-10089229479933705242007-06-10T15:37:00.000-04:002007-06-10T15:37:00.000-04:00Ktismatics, You're quite right. I was linking the ...Ktismatics, You're quite right. I was linking the apologetic response to the SD post. There is a sense in which the gospel should sharpen our awareness of the SD, but the SD is a part of all of us...<BR/><BR/>I like what Jon says too, the SD is somewhere pretty deep down inside of us and we should be more aware of it even when nothing amazing or unusial reminds us.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-1622199116173861782007-06-10T11:05:00.000-04:002007-06-10T11:05:00.000-04:00"This certainly 'works' ok when talking of familie..."This certainly 'works' ok when talking of families."<BR/><BR/>Family was the topic of the post; I was giving the "selfish gene" explanation for altruism in families.<BR/><BR/>"But it completely breaks down when faced with the gospel."<BR/><BR/>The topic was sensus divinitatus. I wasn't offering an evolutionary justification of Christian morality. I wss just trying to outline how you're genetically predisposed to regard your own kids as a little bit of transcendence in the world -- a biological mechanism supporting the SD.john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-44073880064856252992007-06-10T10:22:00.000-04:002007-06-10T10:22:00.000-04:00Dawkins tries to extrapolate an explanation for se...Dawkins tries to extrapolate an explanation for selfless behavior from genetic conservancy. This certainly 'works' ok when talking of families. But it completely breaks down when faced with the gospel. "greater love has no man than this that he lays down his life for his friends".<BR/><BR/>The gospel begins and ends with the cross. Christianity may have lost sight of this a bit but the individual who loves Jesus and desires to follow Him will not have any doubts.<BR/><BR/>It was largely the failure of the selfish gene idea when faced with the fact that Christianity demands that we love others 'more than' ourselves that led Dawkings into the largely abortive idea of memes functioning like genes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-16587944077901849792007-06-10T04:39:00.000-04:002007-06-10T04:39:00.000-04:00"This may be, perhaps, where Theism or Christianit..."This may be, perhaps, where Theism or Christianity has a one-up on naturalistic/secular viewpoints."<BR/><BR/>My point in the prior post was that, if SD is true, then the human ability to investigate naturalistic explanations of God's actions is itself a manifestation of SD. Galileo wasn't trying to disprove God; he was trying to discover something about God's power per Romans 1:19-20..john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-37174184206820366072007-06-10T03:10:00.000-04:002007-06-10T03:10:00.000-04:00With respect to Sam's comment about how altruism b...With respect to Sam's comment about how altruism belies the evolutionists' idea of the "selfish gene," all my books are packed up so I can't cite Dawkins chapter and verse. Here's an excerpt from the wikipedia entry on The Selfish Gene:<BR/><BR/><I>When looked at from the point of view of gene selection, many biological phenomena that, in prior models, were difficult to explain become easier to understand. In particular, phenomena such as kin selection and eusociality, where organisms act altruistically, against their individual interests (in the sense of health, safety or personal reproduction) to help related organisms reproduce, can be explained as genes helping copies of themselves in other bodies to replicate. Interestingly, the "selfish" actions of genes lead to unselfish actions by organisms.</I><BR/><BR/>The idea isn't that genes make individuals selfish, it's that the genes <I>themselves</I> are selfish. So genes build in instincts to protect and nurture your children even at your own expense. Why? Because each child carries 50% of its mother's genes and 50% of its father's genes on into the next generation. In a sense, then, the birth of a child ensures the parents' genetic survival even after they die -- kind of a transcendent feeling, that. Whereas the cry of a stranger's baby on an airplane might just annoy you, the cry of your own baby triggers a genetically-implanted instinct to soothe the baby. Mothers have more of this instinct than fathers because the mother is sure the baby is hers, whereas the father... can never be 100% positive.<BR/><BR/>God might have set up natural selection in such a way that instincts activating the SD through childbirth would have survival value. This reflects the discussion of a few days ago: knowing the biological mechanisms behind SD doesn't necessarily mean that God himself has been explained away. The same genetic mechanism for instinctive protection of one's own offspring operates in pretty much all species of mammals, but these other animals presumably don't have the brainpower or spiritual discernment to understand the SD connection.john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-25010849740512766192007-06-09T16:03:00.000-04:002007-06-09T16:03:00.000-04:00I find the linking of SD to birth and family (and ...I find the linking of SD to birth and family (and perhaps we could add death) a fascinating direction to take. <BR/><BR/>It has its possibilities.<BR/><BR/>As you all know, the <I>locus classicus</I> for SD is Romans 1. <BR/><BR/>I feel the Lord has impressed upon me echos of the SD in 2 Peter 1 particularly in the use of the expression "his divine power". <BR/><BR/>If you are interested to read more click <A HREF="http://icarusredeemed.blogspot.com/2007/06/2-peter-13-his-divine-power.html" REL="nofollow">HERE</A> .Celal Biraderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01242438141738856391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-80311026028709778862007-06-09T11:33:00.000-04:002007-06-09T11:33:00.000-04:00Does SD explain selflessness? I'm not sure.Does th...Does SD explain selflessness? <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure.<BR/><BR/>Does the Christian worldview explain selflessness. I would say, "yes" to this. This may be, perhaps, where Theism or Christianity has a one-up on naturalistic/secular viewpoints. (However, at the Theos Project we always reserve judgment on these issues until our friend, <A HREF="http://ktismatics.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow">John Doyle</A> weighs in.)<BR/><BR/>The point of a discussion on SD (at least for me) is not to have an explanation for reality and our experiences. This kind of turns into a God-of-the-gaps type of approach: God is the best explanation for things we don't understand. I don't have a problem with my Apologetics and Christian philosophy friends who do this, but for me SD is something much more existential.<BR/><BR/>My use of SD is simply to suggest that people <I>respond</I> and <I>react</I> according to the sense of God that they experience in everyday life. We feel the transcendent presence of higher purpose through family and birth. We have a sense of awe and majesty that we naturally reflect to a greater Being when we interact with scenes of nature and natural beauty. We feel accountable to a higher judge when we live immoral or impure lives.<BR/><BR/>Usually when we experience a sense of God we just enjoy it and move on. This is the spirituality of our world in 2007. I'm suggesting that people begin to explore this sense a bit more.Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-37238889728814508412007-06-09T01:48:00.000-04:002007-06-09T01:48:00.000-04:00Selflessness is one of those things that are most ...Selflessness is one of those things that are most surprising to evolutionists. It happens rarely enough, but when it does happen it turns 'the rule' of 'the selfish gene' right on its head.<BR/><BR/>There are naturalistic explanations but these are so obviously inadequate.<BR/><BR/>SD is pert of the Christian explanation as is the imago dei, and this is complemented by general grace, but my question here is do these concepts adequately explain the phenomenon of selflessness?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-8916134905481145902007-06-08T14:18:00.000-04:002007-06-08T14:18:00.000-04:00To note a couple things:"All men and women fear de...To note a couple things:<BR/><BR/>"All men and women fear death; but only mothers and fathers, and perhaps some husbands and wives, can generally be counted upon to fear another’s death more than their own." That's really freakin' cool.<BR/><BR/>Secondly...your surprise here reminds me of something else. Recenly I was discussing with a couple of married friends of mine (to each other) their sex life (eerrr...their sex problems...which involve a heck of a lot more than sexual issues/problems, of course). No, the conversation was not very graphic (that wasn't the point). Anwyay, to the point. My male friend was saying that he in his head separates the sex from the friendship. <BR/><BR/>That was a bit perplexing to me, since the sex is what distinguishes the married relationship (lacking for me) from the friendship (which I do have, with his own wife, for example). But more pertinent to this post, to support his point, he uses the verse(s) where Paul says that its better to be married than burning with uncontrollable passion(s). In other words, my friend sort of views sex as functional.<BR/><BR/>But...concerning sensus divinitus...I went on to point out the verse that commands the husband to love the wife as Christ loves the church. To me, this is an issue of "imageo dei," in which marriage is a picture of the fulfillment of the image of God in "Man." <BR/><BR/>Of course, in that picture, then, you can't separate the sex from the friendship. And, in my mind at least, this is connected to all the tough groundwork of staying married for 50 years, or to the basic idea of simply holding a family together. Or to all the touch groundwork it actually takes to have good sex with a marriage partner (freakin', talking to my friends, it sounds really difficult...you have to be unselfish, and loving, and kind, and patient...eeehh...lol). <BR/><BR/>And, to my point, such tough groundwork, or such love of man as to die for wife, is connected for me to what in our minds is typically separated from "experiencing awe in viewing a grand scene of nature." Interestingly, "a grand scene of nature" confronts us with our idea of "the image of God."<BR/><BR/>Not to attack you. Just using your surprise to think through something I was experiencing/thinking about lately.<BR/><BR/>:)<BR/><BR/>JasonJason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.com