I went to listen to a lecture by a certain Dr. Rudolf Siebert. The topic was on secularism, religion, and reconciliation. Here are my criticisms:
1. He said that 9-11 was aimed at symbols of modernity.
This is only true in part. A critical look at the works of Osama bin Laden and other Wahabi jihadists would show that while they certainly aren't fans of western modernity, their primary issue was with our exporting it to Muslim countries via diplomacy and military interventionism.
He cited the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House as proof of his assertion. The problem lies with the fact that these symbols have more to do with economics and militarism than mere modernity. They attacked the World Trade Center because it was at the core of the globalization they so oppose. The Pentagon was attacked because of its role in the international affairs of other countries. A book entitled Blowback by Chalmers Johnson details this with great precision. The White House, though not attacked, would have been ideal due to the fact that any and all executive decisions made in regards to foreign policy are made from there. These reasons, rather than modernity, loom behind the reasoning of the jihadist.
2. Pope John Paul II said Darwin may have been right.
While this is partially accurate, it is a tad misleading. Darwinism, a theory devoid of God's providential oversight in the creation of evolution of species, is anathema. On the other hand, Old Earth Creationism has a long history in the Church and among the fathers. Furthermore, the Pope never once mentioned Darwin's name.
In short, he was staying in line with his predecessors by affirming that one could be a theistic evolutionist insofar as he remains within the confines of Catholic dogma.
3. Why was Pope Pius XII encouraged not to talk about the Big Bang?
Contrary to Dr. Siebert's claims, the reason for this was due to the fact that Lemaitre wished to have his findings critically analyzed within the astronomical and mathematic communities. He wanted his theory to stand on its own merits, and felt that it wouldn't be taken as serious were it to be heralded by the world's foremost religious figure. It had nothing to do with the potential reaction among the laity.
4. Siebert regularly made the debate to be between religion and science.
This is common, but unfortunate. There is no lack of scientists in the Christian community, whether Catholic or Protestant. It is not as if Science is monolithic, standing its ground against a plethora of men in black. The very fact that he admitted Lemaitre as being the one to break ground on the modern day Big Bang theory is in itself proof of this.
5. He talked about the debate over the personhood of a child.
Unfortunately, he didn't offer scientific proof for when personhood begins. He made an assertion, but never backed it up with scientific evidence of fact. His position was nothing more than an arbitrary opinion. This isn't to say that he doesn't have evidence at his disposal; it is just to say that he chose not to disclose it.
6. The said that the Problem of Evil is a difficulty for religionists.
I would say that it is a psychological difficulty, but not a logical one. On the other hand, I believe that the problem of evil, at least in any normative or meaningful sense, is a logical difficulty for the secularist. Their presuppositions, as varies as they may be, do not provide the necessary preconditions for normative ethics. I contend, as a presuppositionalist, that this can only be found in the Christian worldview.
7. He talked about the seeming contradiction between what the Bible says about oaths and the fact that Christians subject themselves to them, often with their hands on the Bible.
The issue at hand was not with lawful oaths and vows, which were a hallmark of covenantalism, but with the oaths sworn to anything other than God. It dealt with oaths that were rash or vain. Covenantal continuity, over against the kind of discontinuity and contradiction Dr. Siebert presupposes, is the rule of thumb on this issue.
8. He implied that there was a tension or contradiction in in Christ not coming to abolish the law and his remarks pertaining to "you have heard it said... but I tell you..." in Matthew V.
This only holds weight if one believes that what they had heard was an accurate description of the spirit and letter of Torah. Upon scrutiny, we find that this is not the case. It was either in contradiction to Torah, or was a poor and shallow understanding and application of Torah. Either way, there was no tension or contradiction.
9. He talked about how modern day Christians (of the traditional kind) have trouble living out the command to love their neighbors.
If by love he means acceptance, then he is correct. Christ's command was not an endorsement of moral relativism, nor was it a command to embrace or celebrate actions deemed morally repugnant or socially deviant. Granted, Christ spent time with prostitutes and tax collectors. But to argue that he endorsed their lifestyle or celebrated the diversity of their wickedness would be an argument from silence. On the other hand, we do have evidence that he told sinners to repent, be baptized, be discipled, and go and sin no more.
10. He said the Fathers rarely read the Bible literally.
This is only a half truth. Actually, it is only a quarter truth. The Fathers typically used a hermeneutical method known as the quadriga. This forced the interpreter to look at various texts in a literal, spiritual, moral, and analogical sense.
While I could go on to deal with his seeming lack of knowledge on the issues of theonomic casuistry, Just War, and the legitimacy of the death penalty, I will refrain. It has not been my hope to discredit the entirety of what he said. In fact, I thought much of it was noteworthy. The point of this entry was to merely point out those areas I believed to be inaccurate and misleading.
1. He said that 9-11 was aimed at symbols of modernity.
This is only true in part. A critical look at the works of Osama bin Laden and other Wahabi jihadists would show that while they certainly aren't fans of western modernity, their primary issue was with our exporting it to Muslim countries via diplomacy and military interventionism.
He cited the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House as proof of his assertion. The problem lies with the fact that these symbols have more to do with economics and militarism than mere modernity. They attacked the World Trade Center because it was at the core of the globalization they so oppose. The Pentagon was attacked because of its role in the international affairs of other countries. A book entitled Blowback by Chalmers Johnson details this with great precision. The White House, though not attacked, would have been ideal due to the fact that any and all executive decisions made in regards to foreign policy are made from there. These reasons, rather than modernity, loom behind the reasoning of the jihadist.
2. Pope John Paul II said Darwin may have been right.
While this is partially accurate, it is a tad misleading. Darwinism, a theory devoid of God's providential oversight in the creation of evolution of species, is anathema. On the other hand, Old Earth Creationism has a long history in the Church and among the fathers. Furthermore, the Pope never once mentioned Darwin's name.
In short, he was staying in line with his predecessors by affirming that one could be a theistic evolutionist insofar as he remains within the confines of Catholic dogma.
3. Why was Pope Pius XII encouraged not to talk about the Big Bang?
Contrary to Dr. Siebert's claims, the reason for this was due to the fact that Lemaitre wished to have his findings critically analyzed within the astronomical and mathematic communities. He wanted his theory to stand on its own merits, and felt that it wouldn't be taken as serious were it to be heralded by the world's foremost religious figure. It had nothing to do with the potential reaction among the laity.
4. Siebert regularly made the debate to be between religion and science.
This is common, but unfortunate. There is no lack of scientists in the Christian community, whether Catholic or Protestant. It is not as if Science is monolithic, standing its ground against a plethora of men in black. The very fact that he admitted Lemaitre as being the one to break ground on the modern day Big Bang theory is in itself proof of this.
5. He talked about the debate over the personhood of a child.
Unfortunately, he didn't offer scientific proof for when personhood begins. He made an assertion, but never backed it up with scientific evidence of fact. His position was nothing more than an arbitrary opinion. This isn't to say that he doesn't have evidence at his disposal; it is just to say that he chose not to disclose it.
6. The said that the Problem of Evil is a difficulty for religionists.
I would say that it is a psychological difficulty, but not a logical one. On the other hand, I believe that the problem of evil, at least in any normative or meaningful sense, is a logical difficulty for the secularist. Their presuppositions, as varies as they may be, do not provide the necessary preconditions for normative ethics. I contend, as a presuppositionalist, that this can only be found in the Christian worldview.
7. He talked about the seeming contradiction between what the Bible says about oaths and the fact that Christians subject themselves to them, often with their hands on the Bible.
The issue at hand was not with lawful oaths and vows, which were a hallmark of covenantalism, but with the oaths sworn to anything other than God. It dealt with oaths that were rash or vain. Covenantal continuity, over against the kind of discontinuity and contradiction Dr. Siebert presupposes, is the rule of thumb on this issue.
8. He implied that there was a tension or contradiction in in Christ not coming to abolish the law and his remarks pertaining to "you have heard it said... but I tell you..." in Matthew V.
This only holds weight if one believes that what they had heard was an accurate description of the spirit and letter of Torah. Upon scrutiny, we find that this is not the case. It was either in contradiction to Torah, or was a poor and shallow understanding and application of Torah. Either way, there was no tension or contradiction.
9. He talked about how modern day Christians (of the traditional kind) have trouble living out the command to love their neighbors.
If by love he means acceptance, then he is correct. Christ's command was not an endorsement of moral relativism, nor was it a command to embrace or celebrate actions deemed morally repugnant or socially deviant. Granted, Christ spent time with prostitutes and tax collectors. But to argue that he endorsed their lifestyle or celebrated the diversity of their wickedness would be an argument from silence. On the other hand, we do have evidence that he told sinners to repent, be baptized, be discipled, and go and sin no more.
10. He said the Fathers rarely read the Bible literally.
This is only a half truth. Actually, it is only a quarter truth. The Fathers typically used a hermeneutical method known as the quadriga. This forced the interpreter to look at various texts in a literal, spiritual, moral, and analogical sense.
While I could go on to deal with his seeming lack of knowledge on the issues of theonomic casuistry, Just War, and the legitimacy of the death penalty, I will refrain. It has not been my hope to discredit the entirety of what he said. In fact, I thought much of it was noteworthy. The point of this entry was to merely point out those areas I believed to be inaccurate and misleading.
2 comments:
While some of your criticisms may be valid I fail to see how you can offer your own opinions of the topic while finding problems with Dr. Sieberts own opinions.
How can I offer opinions of the topic while finding problems with his opinions? It is rather simple: We disagree. We disagree over various remarks pertaining to science, historical accounts, Biblical hermeneutics, etc.
We do this all the time. I dare say that everyone does. We are bound to disagree with people over any issue. In fact, I would dare say that it is likely that we disagree with somewhere somewhere about pretty much everything they believe.
Now, if you are asking how I, as a student at Olivet College, can criticize the claims of a man with a Dr. in front of his name, then that is a different story with a slightly altered answer. But I am not at all sure that is what you were getting at. If so, let me know and I will explain.
btw- Do you believe that all opinions are equal? Or better yet, do you believe that all opinions that are backed by a personal interpretation of evidence are equal? Just curious.
Post a Comment