;)
The New Atheism; A Consequence of Evolution Theory
Posted by Chris Johnson in Baptist Life, News & Culture
While making my way through the electronic pages of the Baptist Press the other day, an article led me to an interesting claim suggested by the “Gender Issues Office of the SBC….
“Homosexuality is one of the biggest problems facing Southern Baptists today. Thousands of people in our churches are deeply affected
by this issue.”
- Don’t Be Fooled
Well…I commented to myself,….homosexuality is not one of the biggest problems at all,…. but it is “an” increasingly pervasive issue that must be dealt with on a daily basis. Not necessarily in the church though. In fact, the advance of homosexuality in our culture is substantially due to ignorance…. and the advance illuminates a much more important issue; the increasing popularity of evolution theory in many systems of education. That more important issue is the thrust of this post…..because linguistic constructions bring new ways of thinking in our time. And if the advancing of evolutionary theory is an important issue to follow,….homosexuality is at best a smoking gun of an ever more insidious leveraging of its language. The esteem of homosexual behavior and the choosing of such a lifestyle have become overtly popular as a consequence of evolutionary systems of beliefs. So identifying the real actor is an important thing to do… since we must remember that “ The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Of course no one likes to be called a fool, or a despiser of wisdom.
Of similar consequence among believers,… a great many of these once vibrant crusaders for Christ give up on the work of evangelism, and the effectiveness of preaching of the gospel of God because of a simple notion; atheistic mannerisms. This expression of life, now in its new contemporary format of “New Atheism”, has successfully pulsed fear into the hearts and minds of young people throughout the world. And the stubborn grip of silence and ignorance concerning this newly defined concept is creating a climate where education itself tends more violent toward those cowering in ignorance, while the progenitors of such childish, yet militant concepts (atheistic confrontation) continue to incite the scientific novices of the day while soaring aimlessly in the thin climate of education. What shall we do?
- Unbelief and Atheism
First, all Christ followers must understand that… “Unbelief is not the same as Atheism”. The famed self-proclaimed militant, Richard Dawkins, now known for his increasing aggressiveness to limit intelligence, is well aware of the consequences of such evangelistic clarity in this new age of concepts. His response is a show of repugnance which at the present time is spiraling into activism among his peers. So…What should be the response of the believer to this increase in belligerent thought? Before we get to several effective responses, let us first dive into a little more of the context of this war of words and concepts…….
CNN identified this new war of Dawkin’s and his friend’s beliefs when they wrote:
“What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises”.
So more than ever before Christ followers…let the truth be revealed! Richard Dawkins and many more should hear the truth concerning the reality of his claims. Richard’s fight is not really with believers though. His fight is with God, as futile as that may be,…and it is the very God he knows exists…since it would be senseless and irrational to fight something that is none existent,….. yet Richard’s arguments so far yield only echoes; the rehashing of old and tired arguments to capture the profit of updated publishing copyrights.
Yet as time leaped active, the Psalmist’s and the Apostle’s response has echoed the mind of God ….
Psalm 53:1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,” They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good.
Romans 1:20-32 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (21) For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (22) Professing to be wise, they became fools, (23) and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (24) Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. (25) For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (26) For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, (27) and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (28) And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, (29) being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, (30) slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, (31) without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; (32) and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
- Evolution’s Popularity
So in like manner to those choosing homosexuality, the theory of evolution is Richard’s foundational key to the concepts or notions known as atheism. Therefore in the mind of someone like Richard that says there is no God, it is this subborn allegiance to self-creation that pretends an excuse exposed by the Apostle. Self-creation as Dawkins must admit is not science in the least. But, it is something much more valuable to his increasingly militant cause.
And as you will see in the article that follows, the Catholic Church who tends to rest on flimsy theology… has bought into Richard’s systematic argument. I’ve included the entire recent article here instead because it brings out the salient points of Dawkins defense,…Why?….Mainly for convenience…but, we are encouraged to expose the unfruitful works of darkness. Notice Dawkin’s militant aim in this “New Atheism” concept.
……………………………………………….
When Religion Steps on Science’s Turf
The Alleged Separation Between the Two Is Not So Tidy
by Richard DawkinsA cowardly flabbiness of the intellect afflicts otherwise rational people confronted with long-established religions (though, significantly, not in the face of younger traditions such as Scientology or the Moonies). S. J. Gould, commenting in his Natural History column on the pope’s attitude to evolution, is representative of a dominant strain of conciliatory thought, among believers and nonbelievers alike: “Science and religion are not in conflict, for their teachings occupy distinctly different domains … I believe, with all my heart, in a respectful, even loving concordat [my emphasis] ….”
Well, what are these two distinctly different domains, these “Nonoverlapping Magisteria” that should snuggle up together in a respectful and loving concordat? Gould again: “The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value.”
Who Owns Morals?
Would that it were that tidy. In a moment I’ll look at what the pope actually says about evolution, and then at other claims of his church, to see if they really are so neatly distinct from the domain of science. First though, a brief aside on the claim that religion has some special expertise to offer us on moral questions. This is often blithely accepted even by the nonreligious, presumably in the course of a civilized “bending over backwards” to concede the best point your opponent has to offer – however weak that best point may be.
The question, “What is right and what is wrong?” is a genuinely difficult question that science certainly cannot answer. Given a moral premise or a priori moral belief, the important and rigorous discipline of secular moral philosophy can pursue scientific or logical modes of reasoning to point up hidden implications of such beliefs, and hidden inconsistencies between them. But the absolute moral premises themselves must come from elsewhere, presumably from unargued conviction. Or, it might be hoped, from religion – meaning some combination of authority, revelation, tradition, and scripture.Unfortunately, the hope that religion might provide a bedrock, from which our otherwise sand-based morals can be derived, is a forlorn one. In practice, no civilized person uses Scripture as ultimate authority for moral reasoning. Instead, we pick and choose the nice bits of Scripture (like the Sermon on the Mount) and blithely ignore the nasty bits (like the obligation to stone adulteresses, execute apostates, and punish the grandchildren of offenders). The God of the Old Testament himself, with his pitilessly vengeful jealousy, his racism, sexism, and terrifying bloodlust, will not be adopted as a literal role model by anybody you or I would wish to know. Yes, of course it is unfair to judge the customs of an earlier era by the enlightened standards of our own. But that is precisely my point! Evidently, we have some alternative source of ultimate moral conviction that overrides Scripture when it suits us.
That alternative source seems to be some kind of liberal consensus of decency and natural justice that changes over historical time, frequently under the influence of secular reformists. Admittedly, that doesn’t sound like bedrock. But in practice we, including the religious among us, give it higher priority than Scripture. In practice we more or less ignore Scripture, quoting it when it supports our liberal consensus, quietly forgetting it when it doesn’t. And wherever that liberal consensus comes from, it is available to all of us, whether we are religious or not.
Similarly, great religious teachers like Jesus or Gautama Buddha may inspire us, by their good example, to adopt their personal moral convictions. But again we pick and choose among religious leaders, avoiding the bad examples of Jim Jones or Charles Manson, and we may choose good secular role models such as Jawaharlal Nehru or Nelson Mandela. Traditions too, however anciently followed, may be good or bad, and we use our secular judgment of decency and natural justice to decide which ones to follow, which to give up.
Religion on Science’s Turf
But that discussion of moral values was a digression. I now turn to my main topic of evolution and whether the pope lives up to the ideal of keeping off the scientific grass. His “Message on Evolution to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences” begins with some casuistical doubletalk designed to reconcile what John Paul II is about to say with the previous, more equivocal pronouncements of Pius XII, whose acceptance of evolution was comparatively grudging and reluctant. Then the pope comes to the harder task of reconciling scientific evidence with “revelation.”Revelation teaches us that [man] was created in the image and likeness of God. … if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God … Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. … With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say.
To do the pope credit, at this point he recognizes the essential contradiction between the two positions he is attempting to reconcile: “However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry?”
Never fear. As so often in the past, obscurantism comes to the rescue:
Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seen irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being.
In plain language, there came a moment in the evolution of hominids when God intervened and injected a human soul into a previously animal lineage. (When? A million years ago? Two million years ago? Between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens? Between “archaic” Homo sapiens and H. sapiens sapiens?) The sudden injection is necessary, of course, otherwise there would be no distinction upon which to base Catholic morality, which is speciesist to the core. You can kill adult animals for meat, but abortion and euthanasia are murder because human life is involved.Catholicism’s “net” is not limited to moral considerations, if only because Catholic morals have scientific implications. Catholic morality demands the presence of a great gulf between Homo sapiens and the rest of the animal kingdom. Such a gulf is fundamentally anti-evolutionary. The sudden injection of an immortal soul in the timeline is an anti-evolutionary intrusion into the domain of science.
More generally it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science’s turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims.
The same is true of many of the major doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. The Virgin Birth, the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Resurrection of Jesus, the survival of our own souls after death: these are all claims of a clearly scientific nature. Either Jesus had a corporeal father or he didn’t. This is not a question of “values” or “morals”; it is a question of sober fact. We may not have the evidence to answer it, but it is a scientific question, nevertheless. You may be sure that, if any evidence supporting the claim were discovered, the Vatican would not be reticent in promoting it.Either Mary’s body decayed when she died, or it was physically removed from this planet to Heaven. The official Roman Catholic doctrine of Assumption, promulgated as recently as 1950, implies that Heaven has a physical location and exists in the domain of physical reality – how else could the physical body of a woman go there? I am not, here, saying that the doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin is necessarily false (although of course I think it is). I am simply rebutting the claim that it is outside the domain of science. On the contrary, the Assumption of the Virgin is transparently a scientific theory. So is the theory that our souls survive bodily death, and so are all stories of angelic visitations, Marian manifestations, and miracles of all types.
There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain of science. On the one hand, miracle stories and the promise of life after death are used to impress simple people, win converts, and swell congregations. It is precisely their scientific power that gives these stories their popular appeal. But at the same time it is considered below the belt to subject the same stories to the ordinary rigors of scientific criticism: these are religious matters and therefore outside the domain of science. But you cannot have it both ways. At least, religious theorists and apologists should not be allowed to get away with having it both ways. Unfortunately all too many of us, including nonreligious people, are unaccountably ready to let them.
I suppose it is gratifying to have the pope as an ally in the struggle against fundamentalist creationism. It is certainly amusing to see the rug pulled out from under the feet of Catholic creationists such as Michael Behe. Even so, given a choice between honest-to-goodness fundamentalism on the one hand, and the obscurantist, disingenuous doublethink of the Roman Catholic Church on the other, I know which I prefer.
So this is the new attitude of those believing in Evolution theory…….and one source attributed Dawkin’s and his followers as believing the following:
“They state that atheism, backed by recent scientific advancement, has reached the point where it is time to take a far less accommodating attitude toward religion, superstition, and religion-based fanaticism than had been extended by moderate atheists, secularists, and some secular scientists.”
Dawkins and his tribe are not so much interested in all the facts any longer. They are discovering ways to bring about confrontation and fear! What is your response? In an age where seminaries, churches, and Christian leaders are busy about the business of moving toward evolution theory, what is your defense and what would be the means of your defense? I’ll give my thoughts as we engage.
Let us begin!
Blessings,
Chris
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
[...] I know that some of you were regular readers of sbcIMPACT!, but perhaps the technical problems there discouraged you. Go check out the new site. Chris Johnson just posted the first article in the new rotation, called “The New Atheism: A Consequence of Evolutionary Theory.” [...]
Well, nothing about the article itself, but… the new site is… WOW.
I suppose, since the Catholic point of view is a part of the topic, that this might be an appropriate addition to share here, but if not, please delete this, if you think best. It is from a pastoral letter entitled ‘Gaudium et Spes’:
“…methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.
The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the Hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”
“Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason.
Since the same God, who reveals mysteries and infuses faith,
has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind,
God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.”
Sister Christiane,
Thanks for the last line on your post here…. I hope the Pope will reconsider his position as presented by Dawkins,…since it appears his position is slipping more toward evolution than the position you have posted.
-Chris
Cut the evolutionist off at the knees from the start.
Ask him, given his evolutionary thinking, how he can account for the mind (nonmaterial), logic (nonmaterial), ethical laws (nonmaterial), and the uniformity of nature.
These things are preconditions for doing intelligibility. The Christian can account for these things given the Christian’s presuppositions. The atheistic evolutionist, on the other hand, cannot.
Since he cannot account for the mind, then he cannot account for rationality.
Since he cannot account for logic, then he cannot justify being logical.
Since he cannot account for ethical laws, then he cannot justify “criticizing” God.
Since he cannot account for the uniformity of nature, then he cannot justify doing science.
Paul said that the unbelieving mind is foolish. Therefore, there is a place for “exposing” the unbelieving mind as foolish unto the glory of God and the good of struggling Christians.
My sentence above should read “These things are preconditions for intelligibility.”
Benji, how does anyone account for nonmaterial things like mind? A religious answer that fully identifies and proposes a religious solution (by way of revelation or myth instead of observation and testing) is not really much of a solution. A believer in flying pink unicorns can happily explain the mind as a gift from the (invisible) flying pink unicorns, according to the presuppositions held by those same believers in (invisible) flying pink unicorns, if such deities actually existed or not. The argument that the mind is a product of not completely known or understood material processes seems less and less farfetched the further science advances into neurology and brain chemistry, and predictably so. Physical effects (material changes) to the brain seem to produce immaterial changes (effects on the mind, such as loss of intellectual capabilities and the acquisition of personality disorders). There are several religious explanations for the mind, none of which require any proof of which I am aware, only faith. By contrast, naturalism seems to be supported by the scientific progress made and documented in this area. I say it is only a matter of time.
You begin with the mind, and I think these objections are just for starters. However, I have no expertise in psychology, chemistry, or biology. So I will stop there, but I just wanted to point out that perhaps your assertions may not be as airtight as you seem to present them to be here.
Atheism is at the top of the list when it comes to “the spirit of anti-Christ”. Though they use the Catholic Church in much of their arguments they are very similar in Catholic thinking because they have their own definition for specific words which makes it very convenient for them. It seems that they are using a different language to make their arguments. Of course, if the language you use is based upon your “belief”, then, you think you have a reasonable argument. Not so, you just have your own religion and atheist hate that thought. When engaged in discussion or even reading their comments notice words like faith, tolerance, hypocrite, reason and logic. Those are the basics they argue from but their definition and our definition are worlds apart. The view they argue from the most is from Armenian thinking. I have thrown in the Calvinist thought using scripture and many have simply stopped the conversation. Others simply start calling me names.
There are two (2) things I have noticed about their belief in evolution. First, they will not provide proof to the question of where the big blob came from for the big bang. They want proof and there is none, just belief. Without a true starting point you have a fairytale. It is like saying, “Once upon a time there was a Big Bang”. Second, they use “if”, “possibly” and “strong evidence” to try to establish absolute thought. That would be like having a lottery ticket in your pocket and claiming that you have 10 million dollars and really believing you do. I wonder if any of them own a bank that loans money on that same principle? Wouldn’t it be logical for all economies to operate on the same system used to prove evolution? Of course, since there are 103 elements and there would be an infinite amount of recipes to ponder by weight, measure and element number to try to support evolution it simply does not stand to reason to believe in evolution until viable proof exist. There is absolutely no way to create a thread of proof using their formula of “billions and billions of years” either.
I try to find religious articles on Fox, CNN, MSNBC and CBS and find the flies of atheism swarming at them to propagate their religion of no god. I engage in discussion from the viewpoint above. Some will talk respectfully but most just put Christians down, call us names and wish we were eliminated from the face of the earth. I have been banned from CBS for some reason. CNN has recently removed their religious section soon after I began to comment there. It was a pretty hot spot, too. It gives me the opportunity to actually post the gospel message and declare the Truth in love and patience and tolerance (defined the right way) to these misguided people until the light of the Truth comes to them one day. It keeps me as sharp as I can get with what I have and there is always room for improvement.
Great post. It is one I have been waiting for. Wish I could say more. Thanks so much, Chris.
Brother Bruce,
Dawkins appears to have reached a point in his life where the reality of his musing are beginning to bring out anger. It appears that his self announced intolerance is a reaction to his own failings to successfully return an answer his maker….so now meaning is moreover found in the attempts to muffle or remove those that do not think as he thinks.
Hopefully that is just the opposite of how we respond…..since we are encouraged to share the hope that is in us. Christ in us. I’m afraid that Dawkins is becoming irritated at hearing about that hope.
Continue to share the Gospel my friend.
Blessings,
Chris
I think it’s the wrong battle on the wrong ground. Drawing the line at an Answers in Genesis style literalist rigor may not be the best approach. We seem to have no problem that the Bible makes no mention of the Americas or any other discovery in the New World. While the church had to figure out how to account for the new world within a biblical framework, we did it so well that we never even think of it as being an issue. I wonder if portions of evolutionary theory may not be a discovery of the same order – a theological conundrum that over time we don’t feel that we have to explain because there is no real conflict. If there is no conflict between biblical cosmology and the existence of the Americas, Australia, and Greenland, why do we presume a conflict with observations about the age of the earth? Yes, there are some folks looking to displace the Bible, but such have always existed and will continue to exist and will continue to be as ineffective as they have always been.
This is more something I wonder than something I have strong opinions about. Dawkins is an idiot and the more he speaks, the more he emphasizes it. His latest book on The Greatest Show On Earth was weak even in the opinions of his supporters. I worry less about atheism and active opposition to God than I do the apathy that infects so-called Christians.
Brother Rick,
Very, Very true…. the reponse has been apathy. Great points!
-Chris
The argument that the mind is a product of not completely known or understood material processes seems less and less farfetched the further science advances into neurology and brain chemistry, and predictably so.
You seem to be confusing the mind with the brain. If the head is cut open, you will see a brain. You will not see the mind.
Therefore, if what folks think is merely the product of the brain, then why be rational if folks are biologically determined to think what they think anyway?
One brain fizzes theistically. Another brain fizzes atheistically. (borrowing imagery from Douglas Wilson).
Speaking of Wilson, he made the correct statement that you have to start somewhere to get anywhere
The atheistic evolutionist cannot get off the ground if (since) he cannot account for the mind.
By the way, do we want to say that “love” is merely biological as well? Is the sceintist’s wife biologically determined to love her husband? What if she is biologically determined to love someone other than him? Is her “scientific” husband going to accuse her of doing something wrong if she commits adultery (as if “nonmaterial” law exists)?
Benji Ramsaur, I am not confusing mind with brain because in my worldview the mind as a separate entity from the brain probably does not exist. I would say the burden of proof of the existence of nonmaterial things that cannot be detected physically (such as the mind) is on those who believe in such. And, ethical systems do not require the existence of the mind, the existence of a god(s), or even the existence of absolute truth in order to exist and be enforced. But without those things (all three of them, and perhaps any one of them) you could not say the ethical system is anything but a relative system created arbitrarily based on social constructs or cultural ethics, but that’s not bad, really. Ethical systems change over time (slavery, for example) so again the burden of proof is on those who believe that ethical systems can be based on anything absolute which is also immaterial. I say your position causes you more problems than it really solves, unless one also accepts all the presuppositions required to make it work. Which, obviously, I do not.
Byroniac,
For you to talk about the burden of proof being on others concerning “the mind” makes me think that you don’t understand that you are actually putting yourself in a difficult position.
Why should you talk or I listen to anything you have to say if we only have something physical in each of our heads (and not a mind or soul)?
You are using the laws of logic as well when you talk to me. You are not saying “I am not confusing mind with brain and I am confusing mind with brain all at the same time”. That would be illogical. Instead you said “I am not confusing mind with brain…”
What business do you have using something if your worldview cannot account for its existence?
We can’t take the laws of logic and play catch with it.
I don’t understand how I’m playing catch with the laws of logic. Even as a Christian (pretend or otherwise), I did not fully understand what a mind was. However, that did not bother me because my theistic worldview in general and my Christian theism in particular explained its existence using the accepted presuppositions in the system. That explanation was necessarily vague and concerned more the operation and usefulness of such an entity as the mind as opposed to the particulars of its mere existence. I don’t need an immaterial mind in my worldview. I would say that the brain and mind are not exactly synonyms in every sense, because even though they both ultimately refer to the same physical reality, they are nuanced in understanding and purpose. But basically in my worldview, when push comes to shove they are interchangeable. I cannot fundamentally define or explain the existence of the mind itself in any excruciating detail, and I admit I cannot prove that the brain and the mind are one and the same, but I can use the workable definition of the human mind existing as a function of the physical brain in its operations of thought and physical state as a dependent part of the body. The burden of proof comes with the idea that there exists something beyond which we can detect with our five senses (OK, those are at least my five presuppositions I admit) that exists and is somehow important. The assertion that a mind exists separate from a brain is a difficult nut to crack if you want to meet any burden of proof imposed on such a concept, as available evidence on how the brain works and how physical trauma and the like affect seem to oppose the idea of a nonmaterial and independent mind. I also do not understand what you mean by having to account for something’s existence in my worldview. I grant that this is a philosophical problem that needs solving in any worldview, but I fail to see what standard you are requiring in order to “account” for anything. How well can you account for the mind in your own worldview beyond your presuppositions? Every world view has presuppositions. Why are yours better than mine? Just asking, politely, but I am serious.
Byroniac,
My presuppositions allow for the existence of and thus the justification to use my mind and logic [for example].
I do not argue with or talk to physical things that do not have a nonmaterial aspect (mind/soul) in them. Even the animals, if I am not mistaken, have a nonmaterial “nephesh” according to Genesis. So I might talk to my dog. But I do not talk to a tree. I do not talk to the ground. I do not talk to water. None of these things has a mind/soul/nephesh.
If I did not believe that you had a nonmaterial mind (or soul), then I might as well be talking to a tree. You would merely have a brain in which you would merely be having biochemical events going on up in your head. I don’t argue with biochemical events. I interact with your mind.
Your presuppositions do not allow for the existence of a nonmaterial mind and logic and thus you lack justification to be able to use them.
You might criticize my presuppositions. However, you have to use logic [something not detected by the 5 senses], for example, in order to criticize my presuppositions in the first place.
Benji, I think we’ve reached an impasse here. My naturalistic presuppositions of a strictly material universe can serve as the reference point for mind, logic, and everything else supposedly “immaterial.” Even logic would not require an existence separate from the human collective of physical brains that reasoned out its existence and operation within our capabilities to do so. Who is to say that perhaps with higher intelligence or additional unknown physical capabilities to reason in the brain that we could not completely reformulate, expand, and perhaps even fundamentally change the definition of the laws of logic? I can see glimpses of this in the reverse when we observe the capacities for logic and reason in mentally challenged people or in the higher “animals” such as apes. Laws of logic in those scenarios are of limited scope and perhaps even operate somewhat differently for these people and creatures within their “minds” compared to what we would accept as possible to exist, humanly speaking. Plus, how do you know that we are not simply having a conversation entirely based on biochemical reactions in our brains according to naturalistic operations of our organic bodies? And it could be the very logic we use in our philosophy is subjective in the context of the limitations of human nature and our material world. I have no reason for thinking it to be otherwise.
I think the discussion should be shifted over to what Paul says because I think there is going to be much less “wiggle room” to try and pass things off as merely “different interpretations” (as they do with the Genesis account).
Paul interprets Genesis. Paul’s interpretation is that there was one/first man who was made from the ground (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15).
Even among those, like myself, who hold with ‘Old Earth’ Creationism as a probability, the moment of the creation of the first ‘man’ was when God breathed a living soul into Adam.
At that point, ‘the dust of the Earth’ became a human being, worthy of respect, as made ‘in the image of God, with a God-given soul.
I have often wondered if people who hold others ‘not like them’ in deep contempt realize that those others were each gifted individually with a soul from God? If ‘human dignity’ has any meaning in our world, we claim it because of that truth. That ‘shared’ humanity is the result of the work of God, and not the work of any men in this world.
Christiane,
Are you saying man was made from the dust of the earth and in this way implying that man did not evolve from the animal realm or not?
If you are not implying this, then how can man be both made from the dust of the earth and evolved from the animals as well?
Also, why did you feel the need to mention people having a “deep contempt” for others not like them? If that does not somehow relate to what someone has said in this comment stream, then why did you make it? And if it does relate to what someone has said, then could you please quote the particular statement(s)?
Grace to you,
Benji
While what Dawkins says is certainly not honoring to the Lord, I do not think that he is the biggest threat to the health of the church.
I think the #1 threat is what the Catholic church and biologos promotes.
I would liken what biologos is doing as if Elijah got this kind of response:
Elijah says to the Israelites “hey guys, it’s either Baal or Yahweh”. “Well, we believe in an integrative approach” says Israel.
It would help to have a better understanding of atheism and less apprehension as to its threats. In the USA it is sort of like the flea threatening the dog. It can irritate the dog quite a bit, but proper treatment by the master will rid the canine of this problem. It helps to have been an Atheist also. When I hear stuff like Dr. Dawkins I want to fall down and roll on the floor with howls of derision or cry with great sobs of sorrow, but usually just go, “Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!.” After all, when you occupy one little speck of existence in this universe, you can hardly experience everything that would indicate the reality of the Creator…especially when you are pscyhed to avoid experiencing such a reality. One can describe a blue sky to a person born blind until one is blue in the face, but that does not mean the born blind will ever really get any real understanding of what a blue sky looks like. So with poor Mr. Dawkins. O yes, his claims for science are ludicrous. The scientific method is an experimental method limited to present observation, and, since, neither he nor anyone he knows has ever observed evolutionary processes in the past (how could they, when they weren’t there?), it follows that his assertions are exercises in vanity fair, to borrow a phrase from Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. It is enough to move this former Atheist to raucous laughter.
Very well stated James,…… I too believe that understanding the atheistic view is important or at least helpful; precisely for the reason you state. I was intrigued with the “New Atheism” montra …. and how evolution is their lynch pin. Good to know.
How do we respond though? Continue to preach and teach the Gospel of God! It is the best remedy.
Blessings,
Chris
Byrioniac,
You and Benji have quite a conversation going….
I believe Benji is referring to the truth that the Apostle Paul is living in Romans 7. The mind is not simply a lump of meat with synaptic activity.
Romans 7:22-25 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, (23) but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. (24) Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? (25) Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.
God intervenes the natural… allowing us to serve His law….while on the other hand we have no problem living in the flesh.
There is a biblical and evidential reality and distinction in the mind and brain as you have naturally identified.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, thank you for that helpful clarification. I accept the Scriptures as a Christian presupposition. I would like to read Benji’s response to what you have written.
I meant to type, “I accept the Scriptures to be a Christian presupposition” sorry.
Byroniac,
What the Apostle Paul has given to us is truth. It is not required that one believes that there is truth or not, because truth is simply revealed reality, even at the time that the Spirit enables change to the corporeal. So, your first attempt at explaining your position of Christian presupposition is more accurate than the later correction. But, I do see your point.
Naturalistic presuppositions certainly will bring you to another conclusion.
Thank You,
Chris
Byroniac,
You said “My naturalistic presuppositions of a strictly material universe can serve as the reference point for mind, logic, and everything else supposedly ‘immaterial.’”
How about this. If we are ever in the same town, let’s get together and try to eat logic.
You said “how do you know that we are not simply having a conversation entirely based on biochemical reactions in our brains according to naturalistic operations of our organic bodies?”
If that were so, then why would you want to argue with/persuade/talk to the biochemical reactions going on in my brain in the first place?
Byroniac,
I noticed your comment to Chris. In relation to what I mean by the mind, I could basically use the mind and heart interchangeably.
For example, Jesus talked about sins coming from “the heart”. Of course, he did not mean that stealing comes from that physical part of us which pumps blood.
There is a sense in which the mind and braing are mysteriously connected with one another. A scrambled egg, if you will. If a stake is driven through the brain, then you will not hear much communication from the mind.
However, if we are merely having biochemical events going on up in our heads, then talking to each other is about like trying to persuade a tree to stop growing at a certain point.
Benji Ramsaur, please go back and re-read what I said. At this point, all I can do is repeat myself, until you actually interact with what I said, sorry. And I can tell, since you now bring up absurdities into the conversation, that it is really going nowhere, but I do appreciate conversing with you and Chris Johnson. Thanks to the both of you.
Byroniac,
I would encourage you to read this exchange.
http://ablakew.blogspot.com/2007/12/bahnsens-cross-examination-of-stein.html
God Bless,
Benji
Benji, I read the exchange. I may have to buy it on Amazon. However, I fail to see how it applies to what we were discussing. All things, even the “immaterial” can have their existence rooted in the naturalistic presuppositions of a physical universe. The laws of logic, like the mind itself, are simply functions of a material brain, and it is very difficult to prove that a system discovered and understood only by humans (the laws of logic, for example) can or do exist independently of humans or their ability to perceive of it. I would be specifically interested in Dr. Stein’s rejoinder to Dr. Bahnsen after this exchange, which I could not find because the link given no longer works and I did not look at anything else other than the Amazon page. In order for me to come to your point of view, I would require proof (more than mere convincing evidence) that the laws of logic exist independently of humans who as far as we know are the sole users of them. Hope this helps.
Byroniac,
I bring up absurdities because that is what a worldview which only allows for the existence of material things leads to. Now, if I have misunderstood what your worldview is, then I am sorry about that. I am a tad confused as to whether you believe the laws of logic are material or immaterial.
Anyway, if you would like to listen to the entire debate, then here is the link:
http://www.cmfnow.com/thegreatdebatedoesgodexist.aspx
Aha, I did find two references online for anyone interested.
http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/user/gregbahnsen#p/c/75F2FF36C0ECC4A2/1/EW4LXxTZ0S4
Byroniac and everyone else,
I just wanted to mention that I have talked to “Covenant Media Foundation” before and they informed me that they alone hold the copyright to Bahsen’s material.
God Bless,
Benji
Thanks for clarification brother….
Blessings,
Chris
I will also add that on page 12 of the pdf the transcript does not agree with the blog post, which immediately casts suspicion in my mind on the blog post.
In this world dwell the living and dead. The dead, by reason and logic, say there is no God. Additionally, there are many dead who say they don’t know if there is a God or not and many more dead who say there is definately a God and go as far as some kind of worship toward Him. However, they all are dead. Scripture says, “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?” James 2:14ff
I have come to the understanding that the faith of a person in a worldly sense is who they are and it is also what drives them. They could be a doctor, engineer, teacher, weight trainer, mail carrier, miner, pilot or homeschool mom. Faith is the works of a person that identifies who they are. The Christian has been made alive for a different kingdom that produces works not seen on earth. Evolution would never reach that point of progression because evolution would never become divine. The faith a person once had in the world may not change much, however, there is a different and active faith that walks itself out along side and in the worldly faith. This new living faith is fueled by grace and becomes the new driving force of the believer. Though my job would be considered dead works compared to this new walk it should become alive in the living faith. The new faith would make my existing dead faith alive and usefull for the kingdom soon to be inhabited by the redeemed.
An atheist is no different than anyone else on earth that lives in dead faith. It doesn’t matter whether he believes in God or not and you can’t use his reasoning and logic to change his faith. The end result will be the same. When he dies he will be just as surprised as the one who thinks he is a Christian.
Byroniac,
I do appreciate your civil debating style, and hope you continue down that pedagogical path. One of the points of the post is that Richard Dawkins has clearly departed from civil debate and has by his own admission become militant toward those that believe and serve God.
My hope is that you continue to read the scriptures. There is clear observable evidence that the Holy Spirit continues to enable minds and cause the dead to live.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris Johnson,
I meant to correct any false impression that I held to the Scriptures as a Christian presupposition so that is why I rephrased it, but I understand that a Christian would prefer the former.
And, Benji Ramsaur is a good guy. I can tell from reading him on other blogs that he is both respectful and more importantly, sincere. Besides, I want to be nice to people I may wind up debating in the future in blogging venues for selfish reasons, and I have to admit it.
Byroniac,
I think I have a fairly good understanding of your point of view concerning the scriptures….based upon your past postings.
What is always difficult for those who do not understand the revealing of scripture….is that it appears to their mind as illogical, when in fact it is the basis for logic and all natural law.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris Johnson,
What is always difficult for those who do not understand the revealing of scripture….is that it appears to their mind as illogical, when in fact it is the basis for logic and all natural law.
I hate to be dense, but would you please elaborate? How can the Scriptures be the basis of “logic and all natural law” if the Bible is neither a science nor philosophy book? Or are you referring to the “revealing of Scripture” as an act of God? I think I misread what you wrote at first, and now I am not clear. Thanks!
Benji Ramsaur,
I would have to bite the bullet and say that I believe that all “immaterial” things like the laws of logic, or love, or hate, or anything like that, could ultimately be classified as material, because I view them as ultimately dependent on material means in order to exist (easier to do with emotions like love and hatred, admittedly, than rather abstract forms like logic, though). I believe that if science had the knowledge and capability to fully analyze and understand the human brain, that all things, emotions included, could be formulated in terms of biochemical states and reactions. Even the purely abstract, such as laws of logic, probably do not exist independently of the immediate reference point of the human minds in which it is processed. Either that, or the laws of logic could be tied to the physical laws of nature that uphold our material universe (I have a feeling you’re giving me enough rope here to hang myself, but let me go on…).
Your side honestly admits there is a link between the two things of brain and mind, and everyone would of course agree. We can see a rather direct relationship between brain and mind when the former is physically traumatized and the communication by the latter generally takes on inferior quality from before the event took place. No one disputes this I believe. But the flip side of the coin is, there is no evidence that I know of that such a thing as the mind exists independently of and is not lessened by damage to the physical object known to us as the brain. I admit that the laws of logic are the toughest to classify as ultimately material, and any assertion of such on my part is probably tenuous at best and relies rather heavily on my naturalistic presuppositions. But, and I think this is important, I do not believe that the laws of logic are impossible to exist in my presuppositional framework, and if they are, then I do not understand why you believe them to be so. I honestly believe that if I had possession of the correct scientific knowledge of the brain, that I could “flip the right switches” as it were and produce emotions such as love and hate on demand and according to any desired degree of precision. I think it is very possible that the laws of logic also only exist as concepts in our minds (oops, brains, rather from my point of view) that with sufficient intelligence or lack thereof would also substantially differ in quality and relevance to any given subject matter. I’m going out on a presuppositional limb on that one, though, I know.
Wow, the debate is pretty cheap, so it looks like something I definitely need to get someday. Thanks.
Byroniac,
Thank you for your kind comments. Like Chris, I also appreciate your civil debating style.
I think that you are self-conscious concerning your own presuppositions and I think this is a good thing. I also think that you are feeling the force of where those presuppositions are going to lead you if you are going to be consistent. Hence, you are leaning in the direction of believing that even the laws of logic are material.
Based on what you have said here and elswhere I gather than you believe in both reason and the 5 senses.
Could you show me a picture on the web of law (of any kind…moral, logic, nature), reason, or concepts that have been detected by any of the 5 senses as being something material?
I am not talking about the expression of law (in the sense of writing it out on a sheet of paper), but of law itself as being something material.
I want to leave you with one more thought. If the laws of logic have only existed since humans have existed, then I think that would mean that the universe could have existed and not existed at the same time before humans came on the scene.
Grace to you,
Benji
Benji, I lean toward the idea that all immaterial things, such as the law of logic, derive from our minds, which I believe to be identical to our physical brains, and as a result derive ultimately from the material. I keep wanting to ask myself the question that if I believe God does not exist (let us say He does not for the sake of argument, and that there are no supernatural realities), then how could the laws of logic exist outside of the human minds that grasped and defined them? And if they did, and I would have to admit they most probably do, then I would derive that from the basic fundamental nature of reality itself in this Universe (I think that takes care of the logic problem you present concerning the existence/nonexistence of the Universe). This Universe, some would say, appears finely tuned for intelligent life. However, perhaps the correct perspective is that intelligent life is finely tuned for this universe (this is my perspective). However, just about everyone, including me, believes this Universe had a beginning. So, tying the existence of the laws of logic on the fundamental nature and interaction of matter and energy in the universe only pushes the argument back to the absolute beginning. The question becomes one of origins, I think. This is where I think the two of us crash into our hard-as-steel presuppositions with breakneck speed and go no further.
Incidentally, I don’t have to present a picture of law or anything else like that from the web to you. I have already done so in various ways to differing degree with word descriptions that paint a mental picture (an actual illustration would simply represent one or more mental ideas about this). All of this, including its communication, has been done using ultimately material means. I am left at the point of not being able to give evidence that there is anything more going on here than material processes, which is something your worldview asserts to exist. So I believe I can assert that so far as I can tell, my naturalistic world view requires nothing truly immaterial in order to be self-consistent.
Byroniac,
Maybe I missed something, but could you paint a mental picture with words as to what a law of logic or nature looks like?
Are you saying that scientists could take cavaders and pull out laws and concepts from those dead bodies that everyone could see in a bowl?
Here is the concept of dancing (it looks green). Here is the concept of music (it looks orange). Here is the concept of shaving (it feels mushy)
Really?
Have they done this? And if they have not, then what justification do you have using logic, for example, when you have never seen it (but merely suspect[?] that it is material)?
I know what something material looks like. I have no idea what the concept of material looks like.
Benji, I guess it is my turn to ask whether I’ve missed something. When we speak of logic, we use words to describe ideas, and we read those words, process those ideas, and in general understood the “word pictures” formed. If I knew enough about the laws of logic, I could “paint a picture” by writing a textbook on it, or co-authoring one. Now, I might have slightly different ideas about logic than my co-author. I might misunderstand something, or understand something better than my co-author does, or know less about a certain part, or more. Together, we might even be able to conclusively persuade readers that such things as logic exist universally, at least among humans. But we could not prove, merely perhaps assert, that such things exist independently of humans, because we have no way of testing it (maybe even formulating the test, as I for one could not do it). As for cadavers, maybe not, but I see no reason why scientists of the future would not be able to interact with living brains and read memories and concepts from the brain, and possibly reproduce them in other formats, such as digitally. I know, I crossed the line into science fiction there. But my point is that we do not yet really know what the brain is capable of and what we will discover along the way as we analyze it for what it is: the most wonderful computational device known to us in the universe.
Logic is one of those things most difficult to shove into the category of the material, but I believe it can be done. Logic derives from the operations of our brains, which in turn evolved, finely tuned to this universe, which in turn admittedly had a beginning and a very precise manifestation of existence and discernible operation. There is nothing to suggest to me that logic must exist independently of the material universe other than the assertion your worldview makes that it should. The simpler (and to me, more beautiful) explanation is that logic is tied to the fundamental reality of existence itself and the operation of our brains. It’s the origin of the universe that is the ultimate mystery here, and whether there is some cause behind its origin, whether that cause is God, and whether or not God could even be known or described (personal being, impersonal force, et cetera?).
Byroniac,
It almost seems to me that what you are saying is that the immaterial [logic, for example] derives from the material brain.
Or maybe you are saying that the material [logic] derives from the material brain. I am not really sure.
Do you believe that the brain is producing material logic so that a part of logic, for example, could be taken out of the head of someone during brain surgery?
I am an unsure of where you are coming from. It almost seems to me as if you think your worldview is safe as long as logic is being derived from the brain.
The same kind of thing seems to be happening when you talk about the mind being a function of the brain (if I remember correctly). Well, if that is true, then is this a material mind that is emerging from the material brain?
Benji, the way I see it there are two possibilities (in my worldview), only one of which I think is probable. The first is that logic does not exist outside the human brain, because it takes a human mind to comprehend and communicate it (to another human mind, which is the only communication we know for sure is possible with logic). The second one is more probable, that laws of logic do exist outside of the human brain, but not outside or independent of the fundamental nature of the universe we all reside in. That is, the universe is what it is, and such a universe through evolution produced us (who are finely tuned to that universe) who in turn formulated the laws of logic based on how our brains analyze and communicate information. You could trace all of that back to the ultimate cause, the universe itself (which may not really be the ultimate or first cause, I admit). I think from there on it is a battle of the presuppositions. Earlier, I meant to explain that material things exist physically in our universe, and immaterial things such as emotions and possibly the laws of logic, only exist as the derivatives or products of the material brain let’s say. The immaterial might be that giant class of things we can only reference as being produced and held in our brains as thoughts and concepts, though some things, such as logic, probably depend on the universe of matter and energy itself in order to exist, because fundamentally the “laws” of logic are really just descriptions of how reality should and does work, and reality can not really be distinguished from the material though we assert that non-material things exist independent of ourselves and our own universe (without sufficient proof, so we “take it on faith”). Sorry, I’m getting a little muddled here, and I’m not sure I’m proving my point. But basically to me the material is the physical, and the immaterial would be those things that either do not exist at all except as concepts in our minds (and therefore as the raw chemical and neurological impulses in our brains), or exist only as rules and relationships between cause and effect in a material universe. Not sure if that helps, but there it is.
Since evolution is progressive, would it stand to reason that humans should eventually reach a divine state of being? With that, shouldn’t those divine characteristics reach a level of conflict and ultimately destroy all human existance? We live in time and space, unlike eternity were opposing perfect morals (love & hate) can co-exist simultaneously. We could do nothing about it because of the progressive evolutionary process. Maybe someone should earn a Nobel Peace Prize with a solution to bend the evolutionary progression and save humankind like they are doing with this Global Warming thing. Then again, I will just occupy til the rapture.
I spoke pretty strongly in the comment line on MOhler and Evolution here:
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6012/53
As you can imagine, Java Dave makes lot of sense to me there.
Long story short current conversation for enlightened Christians on this matter begins with a reading of Marilynne Robinson’s Absence of Mind.
All conjecture outside her thought for me quite frankly one could write on “Running water, or on Air:” And for sure that includes Al Mohler who is out to lunch on Inerrancy, and Now for sometime Evolution and the first 11 chapters of Genesis.
Brother Stephen,
Marilynne Robinson is a very good novelist and a lot of fun to read. I think she really enters the debate of human existence more from a philosophical vantage point and not so much a theological perspective. Her criticism of Mohler for instance is more about his dogmatics than it is about what the truth of scripture states on human existence. Ms Robinson does make some much needed contributions in the debate, albeit a softer and more general basis of ideas.
My point in this article is that the “New Atheism” is poised to attack more than ever before. In other words, the members of that persuasion are less patient than ever and are proactively seeking to stifle open speech,….even though the evolutionist’s position is not any clearer than the day that Darwin spawned his color of the theory. I guess without evidence to substantiate the theory, the pursuit of that evidence is being replaced by frustration and anger.
Maybe Marilynne is just trying to keep those that are becoming angry welcomed at the table as well.
Blessings,
Chris
Well, a comment by “Java Dave” is an illustration of why I think the discussion needs to shift over to Paul and away from Genesis.
This does not mean that I reject Genesis. It does mean that to stay on the turf of Genesis seems to promote all manner of interpretation of Genesis.
Java speaks of Paul as being doctrinal/propositional. Yep, and part of what Paul waxes doctrinally on is Genesis in propositional form.
However, those who reject inerrancy might just claim that Paul got it wrong. And so the discussion can then “evolve” into a discussion of inerrancy.
Seems like noninerrancy and evolution frequently go hand in hand to me.
It is the mixers of evolution and Christianity who are the most dangerous folks to the health of the church in relation to doctrine.
It would be much better, I think, to elect an atheist to the SBC presidency than a mixer if that were the only two options available.
I am also of the opinion that it is much better for Christian students to take religion/science courses from a purist secular college than from a “Christian” college that mixes.
It is not science versus religion. It is perspective versus perspective.
Benji: In all kindness and sincerity I think you need to become familiar with the thinking of Marilynne Robinson on these matters in both The Death of Adam and in her most recent Absence of Mind.
That is where the honorable, enlightened discussion is these days on these matters. I hope you become a more noble participant in them than Mohler has been to date, and if you come to the conviction you need to concede some prior assessments, I hope you will have the integrity to do so.
As for inerrancy, Diarmand Macculloch quote from page 51 stands like a brick wall saying Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler were mistaken.
Stephen,
Please summarize her view for me.
here is a passage easily googled:
Surely it is fair to say that science is to the “science” [i.e., the social applications of Darwinism] that inspired exterminations as Christianity is to the “Christianity” that inspired Crusades. In both cases the human genius for finding pretexts seized upon the most prestigious institution of the culture and appropriated a great part of its language and resources and legitimacy. In the case of religion, the best and the worst of it have been discredited together. In the case of science, neither has been discredited. The failure in both instances to distinguish best from worst means that both science and religion are effectively lost to us in terms of disciplining or enlarging our thinking.
The essay I have focused on is concerned with discrediting what is worst in science; most of the others in The Death of Adam are attempts to resuscitate what, to Robinson, is best in Christianity, and in particular Protestantism, the predominant source for mores, ethics, and intellectual concentration in America until roughly early in the twentieth century. (The symbolic finalization of this change in the national paradigm may be the Scopes Trial, which Robinson discusses.) For she believes that “we have taken too high a hand” with our past: we discard it too peremptorily as a superstitious and repressive era epitomized by witch-hunts and slavery. How have we managed to blind ourselves to all that is good and instructive from our heritage? Very simply, we avoid reading any books from that time. We can boil down Jefferson to a parochial racist because we don’t read anything he wrote or said. We can portray Jonathan Edwards as a wrathful hurler of brimstone because we don’t read his sermons. We anathematize John Calvin as a grim, scrooge-like propounder of predestination when we have not only neglected to read his theology, we may not even know what country he came from or what century he lived.
In fact, Robinson insists, our dismissive assumptions are by and large wrong. The essays on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the McGuffey Readers, American Puritanism, and John Calvin are intended to revise the prevailing fallacies on the subjects. Robinson (who is a practicing Congregationalist in Iowa) devotes the most effort to restoring Calvin’s reputation in a two-part essay she titles “Marguerite de Navarre,” so certain is she that we will avoid anything bearing her true subject’s name. (As an added measure she refers to Calvin by his French name, Jean Cauvin.) Calvin, in these essays, does indeed appear as we should not have guessed, a Northern Renaissance thinker who moved in the same orbit as Rabelais and whose ideas would strongly influence John Locke and, by the same token, the founders of our country. Her effective essay “Puritans and Prigs” continues this chronology (although it is unfortunately located before the Calvin essays) to parry our generally contemptuous feelings toward Calvinism in America and to compare the teachings of that age to the environment of snobbery, political correctness, and moral abdication that characterize our own time.
These subsequent essays are written in the same vein as “Darwinism” and Mother Country and, above and beyond their ostensible subjects, they confront the reader with an unyieldingly severe and frequently acrimonious criticism of modern culture. It is this excess of archness that proves to be the most significant limitation of Robinson’s nonfiction. “McGuffey and the Abolitionists” is a good example of an essay inhibited in its power by the constant irruptions of anger that shoot up throughout it. Robinson has said that she admires the American abolitionists as much as any group of people in history; her admiration, however, is smothered by her interludes of reproach. The McGuffey Readers were Christian-oriented schoolbooks popular in the South and Midwest for a few decades before the Civil War. They contained poems, didactic tales, and, apparently, Scripture, along with the standard lessons in grammar and pronunciation and the like. Speaking for myself, I had not heard of these books before, much less did I know they were objects of contemporary opprobrium, which Robinson must lengthily refute. Her angry rebuttals are therefore nonplussing. And if we have come to The Death of Adam hoping to learn things, we are sometimes irritated by a tone that suggests the author is getting tired of having to explain everything in the climate of ignorance we create for her. Even when she means to praise, she’s unable to put down her cudgel.
There is an irony here too, of course, since Robinson is in part trying to change the common perception of Calvinists as severe and censorious in disposition.
The failure in both instances to distinguish best from worst means that both science and religion are effectively lost to us in terms of disciplining or enlarging our thinking
What criteria does Robinson advocate for in order to make these distinctions?
The second one is more probable, that laws of logic do exist outside of the human brain, but not outside or independent of the fundamental nature of the universe we all reside in.
If this is true, can I walk outside and see/feel/etc. a law of logic in nature?
Benji, if you walk outside and think about logic, you will see a mental picture of it inside your mind, which is happening inside your brain in my belief. You will also see gravity, or rather the effects of it instead of the thing itself, and you could conclude that the way gravity works is logical. I can say that without having the slightest clue how it actually works. You can “see” in your mind things like up, down, hate, love, gravity, logic, happiness, math, physics, art, religion and the like, and not know fully why they exist (at least in my perspective) but in my worldview there is no problem to say that these things are tied to our material world and its physical universe, simply because they are the way they are. The “why” and “how” these things came about is where I fall back on my presuppositions of a material universe, and I have to ponder the origin of such without really having a dogmatic answer.
Byroniac,
Let’s stick with the laws of logic. And let’s become even more specific and talk about the particular law of logic called the law of non-contradiction.
If your statement [you spoke about probability, but let's go ahead and press it beyond probability and assume that it is actually true] about laws of logic existing outside of the human brain exist is true, then can I see/touch/taste/etc. the law of non-contradiction?
Hopefully this is worded better
If your statement…about laws of logic existing outside of the human brain is true, then can I see/touch/taste/etc. the law of non-contradiction?
Benji, you ask a great and difficult question. That’s the main reason I haven’t responded in two days, because it stumped me at first and I wanted to think about it before replying. I have also been a little busy as well. I think you make a good point, and I have to agree that the law of non-contradiction belongs in the set of immaterial things in this universe. My reasoning on this takes me on a much different tack than yours, and I still wind up at the question of origins of the universe when I dig to the bottom of the barrel of all my presuppositions. But I will get to that in a moment by explaining my reasoning, which leads right back to that.
The definition for the law of non-contradiction, as opposed to the law itself, exists only in our minds which because of my presuppositions I hold to be the same as our material brains. I think you can grant me that, because it took a human mind to discover and define the law, and so far as we know, the definition is only taught to and communicated by human minds (and, of course, God, in your view). Since the law is not in revealed Scripture as far as I know, I have to then ask how was it discovered? By observing reality such as we have it, analyzing it with our minds, and forming a way to describe the aspect of reality observed (even if it is only “observed” in the mind). The ultimate foundation for the existence of the law of non-contradiction is therefore either God, according to your view, or the universe/reality itself in my view, since my personal set of presuppositions lacks the need for God in order to explain existence. The fact that reality exists and is not some other reality is enough for me to accept the law of non-contradiction I think.
Otherwise, I might as well start asking all sorts of questions about reality. Why is yellow yellow? Why is Earth the size it is? If God exists, where did He first put the Earth before He started it spinning and orbiting the sun? And why that particular location, as opposed to, say, some other point on its orbit of the sun? Why do we have two arms and two legs? Why do we sleep (really, I mean, why not have bodies which do not require sleep in order to function)? Why is the human race of a particular average height and weight, and not some other? Why do we have two eyes, and not one or three or more (and personal question: why are things like this not answered in Scripture)? Why do we have two genders and not one or more than two? Why do we only see and hear certain ranges in our sensory input, as opposed to what we know to exist (and why those specific limitations)? Why do we have five fingers on each hand, five toes on each foot, why do our arms and legs attach to our bodies and bend the way they do, etc? I could ask many, many questions that I don’t think your view answers or even generally considers important. Assuming a God does not answer these questions any better than it really answers the question of why does the law of non-contradiction exist? Because that’s reality; that’s why! And ultimately all reality is rooted in God… OR… all reality simply is what is because the material universe is what it is. So the question boils right back down to origins. Either God did it, or the universe is here for some reason. I don’t think the only or the best answer to this is God, personally.
Byroniac,
I think the law of non-contradiction is implied in possibly every verse of Scripture. God does not say in the beginning God and not God. He says in the beginning God…
You and I are also assuming this law every time you make logical statements. I think this reflects that we are made in the image of God so that our thinking reflects his thinking (or rationality) to an extremely limited degree (not absolutely).
If we say that this law does not exist outside of our physical selves, then the universe could have existed and not existed before humans came on the scene.
If we say that the law does exist outside of ourselves, then where is this law found? I would say it is found in the being of God who maintains the order we see in the universe. However, if it is not found in God, then where is it found?
And if God is not maintaining order in the universe, then we have no basis for thinking the universe will remain orderly.
Are we imposing order on the universe from our minds or is there real order in the universe so that our minds can think about it in an orderly way? And if the universe is orderly outside of our minds, then who is maintaining this order?
If we say “Well, it is just orderly…it just is”. Well, then how do we know that and how do we know that it will remain that way? How do we know that the Hindu is not right in his belief that what is seen is actually an illusion?
Benji, that would be a great argument if the Universe was perfectly ordered in all its operations. Much of nature is chaotic and unpredictable. You can argue that lack of perception of order does not imply the presence of disorder, but then I think you have to explain why we fail to perceive more order than we do if we are the creations of God. Referencing Adam’s sin and the rest of Scripture for me is just falling on presuppositions at this point.
You also ask, “…how do we know that it will remain that way?” We don’t. We can’t. You can’t, either, with all due respect, but you can refer back to your presuppositions at this point. You ask before that, “…who is maintaining this order?” Perhaps that’s the wrong perspective. Drawing from what Douglas Adams said, perhaps suggesting the world is a perfect fit for a certain puddle of water in a specific land depression is the wrong way to look at it. God as an answer is problematic because it explains any gap in knowledge too completely and too conveniently. She/He/It might very well be the answer, but assuming it to be so without actual certainty in knowledge at that point requires presuppositions I think. It could be the whole thing is an illusion, or that the Universe as I think I know it, exists only inside your head, along with me, and the rest of “reality” such as I see it. It does not have to be the way you, I, or anyone else wants it to be. It can simply be what it is, and be discovered as such (when and if possible).
Byroniac,
I understand that you said that we cannot know for certain if the universe will remain orderly, but we both assume a basic orderliness or else we might be scared to turn the door handle next time for fear that the next time might cause an explotion that would kill us.
Also, science would be undermined without the assumption of the basic order of the universe. Science operates on the belief of the uniformity of nature…the idea that the future will be like the past. But if that belief is not grounded in Scripture, then what is it grounded in? Does it just hang in the air?
Benji, sorry but now we get right back to the part of your argument I guess I don’t understand, so here goes nothing.
Of course, I have to expect the universe to be (mostly) orderly and to make sense. I’m hard-wired that way, perhaps by Evolution (much like the water puddle in Douglas Adams’ quote to favorably respond to its environment). I can’t know that turning a door knob won’t produce an explosion killing me in the process, or that twisting my keys in the ignition of my vehicle won’t produce an explosion either. I agree with you that the basic orderliness (more or less) in the universe isn’t simply a part of my perception, but I have no way of knowing how much greater or different than my perception it is or could be at all times because I am limited. You accept doctrine that declares the nature of reality from a holy book without being able to fully verify it for yourself either. But you place much more confidence in a holy text which you cannot personally verify than I do in my own limited senses.
You also say that science would be undermined without assuming basic order to the universe, and that’s most probably so. Then you say science operates on the belief of the uniformity of nature, but actually, scientists themselves operate on the belief of the uniformity of nature. That distinction may not be worth much, but I want to make it. Then you ask what that belief is grounded in, if not Scripture? But, why does it have to be grounded in anything, other than in the reality itself of the universe? This is the part of your argument that for the life of me I just cannot understand, sorry. We don’t have to fully understand reality or be able to fully define the operation of nature so that we can fully qualify a theory of uniformity, just in order so that it will exist. And why the Christians Scriptures in particular? Why not some other other holy book? Without referring to your presuppositions, why would one holy book be better than another? I’m deliberately excluding here obviously concrete things such as historical events and the like (which generally disproves the Book of Mormon based on the available historical and genetic evidence, for example). I’m focusing only on supernatural realities here (if they exist), and then specifically on origins. And again, why is a God(s) (one, two or multiple) required to explain reality? It makes me wonder, since there is such varied disagreement and religious theories, by people with equal sincerity and conviction to yourself. That alone does not disprove all religion, or even yours, but personally it does make me question it. Hope that clarifies for you what remains confusing for me.
Byroniac,
But, why does it have to be grounded in anything, other than in the reality itself of the universe?
What you have seen of the universe is very limited. You have not, for example, been there to observe everyone letting go of a ball to see if it fell to the ground. So, you do not know if there have been 30 times in history in which once the ball was let go, it shot straight up into the air.
And even if you were there to observe every ball that was ever let go in history, you would still not be able to know if the next time a ball was let go whether it would fly upwards or not.
This is an illustration of this truth:
In order for us to have certain knowledge of anything, we would have to know everything…aside from the being [Triune God] who does know everything revealing some things to us.
This God has revealed His existence to everyone [including yourself] according to Romans 1 so that you know that He exists but you are now suppressing that truth within yourself. Bahnsen, I believe, likened what you are doing to someone suppressing a volleyball in the water.
In fact, Paul uses the definite article [the] to explain that everyone knows the God [not a god such as the god of Mormomism, etc.]. Hence, all of humanity is divided between those who accept what they already know and those who suppress what they already know.
To not ground our beliefs in something results in us being arbitrary concerning what we believe. In other words, we are unable to “justify” what we believe without our beliefs being grounded.
Now, what can be done is expose the foolishness of different unbelieving worldviews to illustrate what Paul was talking about concerning the foolishness of the unbelieving mind. And I think Bahnsen was good at this. However, what even Bahnsen could not do is expose every worldview as foolish because he himself was finite and thus could not claim to have “knocked down” every unbelieving worldview that has ever existed in history.
However, what can be asserted, based on the authority of the God who knows/controls all things, is that any unbelieving worldview is foolish.
Hence, even if I persuaded you away from the particular unbelieving worldview that you hold now, you might still respond by saying “Well, yes that worldview is foolish, but I will hold out hope that there is some worldview out there [other than Christianity] that is not foolish”.
So, I [or any other Christian] cannot illustrate the foolishness of every unbelieving worldview [We're finite]. However, we can still leave you with what God’s word says about any other mindset other than the Christian one: They are all foolish.
When we say this, we are not saying that you were born with a low IQ. What we are saying is that something unethical before God is going on in your heart so that you are rejecting the God that you know about…and this rejection results in foolishness.
Now, if I am to hold on to my own presuppositions, then I must maintain what I have said above.
May God bless you through Christ,
Benji
Benji, you sound a good bit like a judge reaching a guilty verdict. Are you Calvinist by any chance? Calvinistic?
As an ex-Calvinist (five pointer) myself, I basically held to the same presuppositional apologetics you present here. But a friend pointed out to me the absurdity of such by giving a courtroom example with a prosecuting attorney. “He’s guilty, your Honor! Because we want him to be, and as such, he should receive the maximum penalties under the law!” I am not sure that this is ever acceptable outside of religion. And inside religion, this is not an appeal to the intellect, but seems to me to appeal directly to our baser emotions, such as fear and guilt, to manipulate thought patterns into subservience. The Christian religion has so little going for it in terms of evidence as far as I can tell that perhaps this approach is necessary, and it is unlike how we should approach every other subject matter in life.
Then you talk about observing a particular effect in nature and not being able to predict a contradictory result without some authority external to our own senses (implying the authority of a holy book I think). Now I agree we need more than just our senses to ground our knowledge and expectation of how nature works. That is why I made several statements that ground such reference in the universe itself. That argument needs more development I realize, but such is beyond my capability or training as it involves more scientific and philosophical knowledge than I have, sorry. But back to your example, which basically equates into a discussion on the Law of gravity. As far as I know, this was discovered and basically tested without a single reference being absolutely necessary to the holy text known as the Bible. I am really not certain why a holy text is necessary to ground any presuppositions except supernatural ones. And I suppose that a link from this natural world to the supernatural world has yet to be proven (to me and those like me), with the burden of proof resting on theists such as yourself.
Then you mention Romans 1, suppressing knowledge and truth, and the foolishness of any worldview except the one you support, according to your presuppostions and your holy text. Okay, fine. I’ll bite. How exactly *AM* I suppressing the truth of the One(tm) True(tm) Christian(tm) God(tm)? Sorry for all the trademark references, but not really because I am trying to make a point and I think I made it implicitly there. And, since you took your gloves off back there so to speak, I will take mine off with what I say next. I’m no more suppressing the truth of the invisible, mysterious Christian God which nonetheless requires my credulity and obedience, than you are suppressing the truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Tooth Fairy, and Mary Poppins (my Trinity of choice, by the way) all of whom have revealed themselves to you according to presuppositional apologetics and require your faithful and obedient response in the promise of an eternal happy afterlife or threat of perpetual never-ending soul torture. Every other view is foolish. But, I will desperately cling to the hope that there exists some worldview which is somehow not foolish by this presuppositional standard. Rejection of the FSM, TTF, and MP is immoral and leads to further foolishness. And, I am constrained to agreement with these presuppositions and warn you accordingly.
See? That makes me feel better, at least. And that is about how much worth the presuppositional approach to apologetics, the Romans 1 passage, and the entire Bible that contains it has to someone who rejects those particular presuppositions and the Christian view of the Bible. Sorry, but beside from the raw emotional appeal (manipulation), it has no value except to those who already affirm it (e.g., using the “choir” metaphor).
I think the two of us would agree on one thing, however. Either the Bible is and must be the inerrant, divinely written word of an Almighty, Sovereign God, or it is basically bogus and filled with empty promises and toothless threats. I do not believe it can be somewhere in between the two extremes, which is one reason I rule out liberal Christianity for me personally, but then again, perhaps that comes from my fundamentalist mindset. I do have a confession to make, however. I am more of an agnostic than an atheist, with deist leanings (I may wind up there, in fact). God may very well exist somewhere somehow, and if so, He must be Sovereign and Holy. But, if so, I am not sure He needs or even wants us to know Him or what He’s doing. Yes, I know. Romans 1. Which reminds me, I need to read material on cognitive science because religion might be hard-wired in us thanks to evolution, but I really have no idea.
Well, I would flash you the Vulcan peace hand symbol, but you will just have to imagine it for now.
Live Long and Prosper,
Byron
Byroniac,
It is a bit weird to me, I think, that we disagree so strongly and yet I still like you.
You have expressed some very strong opinions and yet you have still refrained from emotive name calling. Thank you.
I’m no more suppressing the truth of the invisible, mysterious Christian God which nonetheless requires my credulity and obedience, than you are suppressing the truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Tooth Fairy, and Mary Poppins (my Trinity of choice, by the way) all of whom have revealed themselves to you according to presuppositional apologetics and require your faithful and obedient response in the promise of an eternal happy afterlife or threat of perpetual never-ending soul torture. Every other view is foolish. But, I will desperately cling to the hope that there exists some worldview which is somehow not foolish by this presuppositional standard. Rejection of the FSM, TTF, and MP is immoral and leads to further foolishness. And, I am constrained to agreement with these presuppositions and warn you accordingly. See? That makes me feel better, at least.
Are you trying to convince me of this or yourself?
Grace to you,
Benji
P.S. Please just answer that question for yourself. I am not interested in “winning”.
Thank you Benji for a very spirited and generous conversation. I learned quite a bit from you. Your argumentation is stronger than I had anticipated, I admit. Best wishes and hope to see you around on the blogosphere.
See? That makes me feel better, at least.
Just a point of clarification. When I said this, I was mocking presuppositional apologetics by placing myself in the shoes of a presuppositional apologist who could very well end his argument with an, “At least that makes ME feel better.” You see, unless someone accepts your presuppositions or can be emotionally manipulated by them as presuppositional apologetics tries to do, then the end result has very little value to those who do not believe the assertions. Presuppositional apologetics is very easy because you do not have to defend anything, but just make a bunch of assertions (even accusations) and hope they stick, and if not, then politely close the conversation and carry on your business. And it is very useful, because you can use it to defend almost anything, as I jokingly did with reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Tooth Fairy, and Mary Poppins trinity.
Cheers!
Having been an Atheist prior to my conversion (and making converts to Atheism), I find this discussion interesting and funny. When i listen to Dawkins or read what he has to say, I want to fall down in raucous laughter or go tsk, tsk, tsk or, more appropriate, sob great racking sobs for the blindness of a human being. Consider how the Scientist is not very scientific and how he pushes his methodology beyond permissible limits (laboratory method does not allow for a smooth transition and application to historic events which do not submit to repeatable, verifiable experiments) And then there are those experiences and issues which lie outside the immediate provenance of the experimental laboratory manipulations so dear to the heart of true science. O yes, I forgot to add that the scientific method has a flaw that is well known, namely, the paralysis of analysis; it apparently lacks a synthetical approach large enough to take in disparate elements. And Creation might not be as a lame as Dr. Dawkins likes to argue. After all a gentleman from the old Soviet Union, using quantum algebra and data on the doppler red shift that suggested another explanation stumbled into the fact that maybe the universe is not quite so old as we think. But then we did not allow the gentleman who testified in the Arkansas Evolution Trial to the effect that the halo effect in basaltic rock suggest a recent creation, and he challenged the scientific community to falsify his findings. Instead the buried him in the oblivion of no contracts to do his work…It was much along the same lines as the doctor who was put in an insane asylum in the 1800s for introducing the washing of hands to the medical community. O yes, the man in the Scopes trial with the education was William Jennings Bryan. He had three earned degrees, a bachelor of arts, a master of arts, and a bachelor of laws. Darrow was self taught, and the supposed tooth of Nebraska man, guessed at random by Bryan to be a pig’s tooth, turned out to be the tooth of an early peccary. Any one reading what Social Darwinism has done to millions and millions of human beings might be social respected for having serious doubts about the validity and reliability of a theory that is so inimical to even the very existence of mankind. You gentlemen shoudl really take a look at Social Darwinism and its devestating impact on human society in all parts of the globe. It is a good subject which is briefly considered in Intellectual History. I remember how evolution enhanced my hostility to, and hatred of, religion, especially the Christian Faith. But then I saw the Faith come into a Hell called a home in which people were threatening murder one another and thqat faith brought peace and happiness to a most miserable and heinous situation.. Having lived through that change without in any wise recognizing it until I, too, was visited with the same saving person, namely, Jesus of Nazareth who appreared to me in a vision or a hallucination (how does one prove anything of that nature), I have but one word for the so-called scientific nature of evolution: Baloney. I do not regard it as being at all objective, especially when I behold scientists going out of their way to crush all oppositon as if they were fearful of the slightest doubt of their position which always suggest something is wrong with a position. After having wanted to do away with most people, a fact that I suppressed in my conscious thinking but indulged in fancied images of warfare, I had the opportunity to get my eyes opened to the shortomings of the methodology of science, when it comes up agains a situation involving two or more antithetical ideas – both of which are true and must be taken together. The ideas of Cognitive Dissonance, creative dissonance, and my crisontological approah deal with the two-sidedness of reality that the present method of science hardly knows exist…although science educators in the field are becoming aware of the problem. I shocked one Ph.D. candidate in science education by pointing out the problem with the present method. She was utterly shocked! “How did you know that?” She asked. And with that I am weary. God open the eyes of all people on earth in one generation and then for a thousand generations..for the glory of Christ.