Evolution of Morality?

The following is my review of a blog suggested by Keith C. Thanks Keith for the suggestion and chance for critique:

http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/ … isions.php

The author of this blog begins by unfairly stating the Christian’s case:

Morality is the final domain that theists cling to in order to justify the existence of God. They argue that, without a supernatural deity (or deities), there would be no reason for people to be kind with one another and we would be constantly at each other’s throats.

Maybe Bill Mahr, who seemingly worked hard to find the most uneducated Christians for display in his movie “Religulous”, could help the author find a Christian willing to make the above argument? So stated, it isn’t an argument a trained theologian would present. Nor is it (certainly) the “final domain” that we Christians “cling to” in order to “justify” God’s existence. (I wonder at the presumptuous tone of the author. Has he really investigated all Christian claims and considered all arguments? I’d love to read his critique of Van Til’s transcendentalism.)

The historic Protestant position is that…due to God’s common grace, no fallen man is as terrible as he possibly could be. Therefore, even pagan societies in the heart of Africa (who are without knowledge of systematic Christian ethics) aren’t as terrible as they could be.

The traditional moral argument is better stated thus: Given an ideological commitment to utilitarianism or other subjective ethical systems…there is no objective grounding for ethical statements and in such systems…were they adhered to consistently, one ethical position would be just as valid as another (the only commanding factor being the strength and ability to implement the desired action.) Thus, no atheist would be able to justify (in principal) any law…other than by an appeal to arbitrary emotional dispositions…dispositions like: “Well, I feel we should only allow actions that benefit society.” If they are strong enough to implement such emotional dispositions, then great.

The author of the blog arrogantly presupposes this definition of morality, without interacting with the history of philosophical speculation surrounding the position. He says this:

Moral behavior is little more than behaving in ways that are beneficial to the group rather than merely to yourself.

Says who? The author wants to arbitrarily stamp the term “moral” on actions that make him feel good…or align with an ethical philosophy he has arbitrarily chosen.

This is a subjective definition, dressed in objective clothing, and the discerning Christian will not let the author get away with it.

Morality For All Seasons: Reply to a Skeptic

Here is a question for all christians.  Tom and Ken especially.

Do you think that stoning someone to death is a morally good thing to do?

If you answer yes, then what about throwing stones at someone until they die is moral?

If you answer no, then why does God tell us to stone people in the bible?

Yes, I know that the punishment was fulfilled with Jesus, but if it is wrong NOW, then it was wrong THEN as well.  I mean, this is exactly what is in Ken’s blog here, where it reads “If something is true, it’s true for all people, at all times, in all places”.

So, which is it then, is stoning someone morally wrong, or morally right? – posted by Mark

Mark,

Unfortunately, many Christians fail to educate themselves on covenant theology.  It’s no wonder that unbelievers are clueless about the concept.

I’ll briefly answer your question (which is a legitimate one) though I’ll preface my answer by admitting at the outset to being a Reformed Christian who holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith (in the main) and as such, my answers may not be agreeable to Mr. Tom, or Mr. Ken…(who may wish to allude to some sort of Dispensational motif.)  I believe the only way to surmount the apparent contradiction you raise is via the Reformed view.

To begin, I need to re-emphasize a point I made to you in an earlier post:

Supposing (1)slavery were “right” at a particular time, in a particular place, for a particular people…and supposing (2) “absolute truth”…there is no reason to conclude that slavery must be right for all people at all times and at all places.  However, what we MUST conclude (were we to suppose the two stated propositions) is that slavery at said time, for said people, at said place…will always be right…

Remember my previous illustration?  If a certain highway is 70 mph, then it doesn’t follow that all highways are 70 mph.  That would certainly be absurd.  However, it will be true for all people, in all places, at all times…that at one particular point in history…on this particular highway…for a particular set of people…the speed limit was/is 70.

However…your objection still has strength to it.

Many Christians would be willing to leave “nasty” things like slavery and stoning to the ancients.  As I’ve demonstrated with my speed limit illustration, they would be logically within their rights to do so and still hold to the idea of absolute moral truth.  (It can be said that Christians hold to a system of moral archetypes that are played out in different ways through various different situations…while still holding true to the archetype.  We could say then, that in some cases walking old ladies across the street is moral, while in other cases, it could be terribly immoral.  She may not want to cross the street!  If one Christian walks an old lady across the street, and another Christian, with a different old lady in a different context does not…they both may still be holding to an archetypical standard of respect without contradiction.)

So, the real question arises:  Are slavery and stoning meant to be standards for all people at all times in all places?

The honest Christian has to admit that they are meant to be universal standards to govern human action.  Christ says in Matthew 5:17 that He did NOT come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but rather he came to “FULFILL” them.  Many modern evangelicals wiggle, squirm, and run circles around this passage to try and explain it away…but no matter what they claim “Fulfill” means…It DOES NOT MEAN ABOLISH.

While I’ll not further defend this concept here…I can say that your attempt to reduce Christian morality to absurdity by alluding to the politically incorrect “sin” of slavery is simply another attempt by an unbeliever to judge Christians by worldly standards.  If the Bible lays out for us legal ways to interact in society, then we are allowed to do so…even if it may seem terrible when looked at through modern politically correct lenses.

(For anyone interested…you can read more about the concept of theonomy, and specifically how an application of Old Testament case law would look to today’s society in Dr. Gary North’s excellent book on the subject:  Victim’s Rights.  I highly recommend you at least Google the concept of theonomy and covenant theology before making any knee-jerk replies to my post.)

A Quick Discussion of the Cosmological Argument with an Atheist

This is a discussion I recently had with a contentious Atheist:

Tha Mental Cripple says:

(GOD) doesnt exist. A “He” as the Source 2 All of this cant possibly exist….Use that thing between your ears. This is all very basic, not hard 2 understand at all. Now if you wanna talk of “God” being an energy, like consciousness itself which is apart of everything then you might be getting somewhere, but even then theres not really any reason 2 put all this focus on it, “God” that is. Why do you want 2 worship something so bad?, why do you follow tradition so willingly? What does the concept of God really mean 2 you, I mean what does it really do for you. Think about it.

Shotgun replies:

Mr. Mental,

You say that a “source 2 this can’t possibly exist.”

I assume you mean that the Christian concept of metaphysics cannot possibly be true.

As a Christian apologist who spends a lot of time pondering the Christian metaphysical system (as well as various other systems) I’d love to hear the reasons behind your conclusion.

Tha Mental Cripple responds:

Its ****ing  basic buddy, if “He” created the Universe then what created the Creator.

Shotgun Concludes:

Mr. Mental Cripple,

It’s unfortunate that so many Christian apologist would rely on pagan philosophy (specifically the baptized Aristotelianism of Aquinas) to defend the Christian faith.

As a result the so-called “cosmological argument” for the existence of God has wide-spread popularity amongst Christians.  (See the writings of William Lane Craig or R.C. Sproul for instance.)

As you’ve been able to see…this argument is faulty for various reasons.  Bertrand Russell makes short work of it in his essay “Why I’m Not a Christian.”

However, I have to warn you against critiquing colloquial understandings of the argument.  It may be popularly stated at times as: “Everything that exists must have a cause…” This is a faulty and simplistic way to state the Cosmological Argument and if stated like that…your critique:  who then “caused” God?… would be applicable. If everything that exists has a cause…and God exists…then God must have a cause.

The real argument is somewhat more complex however and your simplistic critique doesn’t apply.  Aquinas begins by reasoning that there are no innate ideas.  Somewhat similar to the atheists of today, Aquinas would agree that all knowledge comes through the sense perceptions.  In order to prove God then…he relies on his sense perceptions.  And…one thing Aquinas noticed about the world, is that things are contingent…(they are not necessary.)

This means that no one person necessarily exists any more than another.  Why were you and I (Mr. elppirC and Shotgun) born instead of two completely different people in our place?  We are totally contingent.  There is no physical item in the world that we observe that can be said to “necessarily exist” (according to Aquinas.)  Since all things are contingent, then they all at one time did NOT exist.  Therefore…it’s reasonable to assume then, that at some point nothing at all existed.  But then…if nothing at all existed…then nothing at all could ever exist since “nothingness” cannot produce anything at all.  Therefore, Aquinas concludes that there MUST be some sort of eternally existing, self-fulfilling “first-cause” of all the other contingent facts of our eixistence.

When argued thus…you can clearly see why the question “then what caused God?”…would no longer be applicable.  However…there are a host of other problems with this argument.  (One being…it leaves the door open for a possible “first-cause” for EVERY single event we experience.  This certainly would upset the Christian, who is not trying to prove a polytheistic faith.)  Additionally…there is no reason (implicit in the argument) that an infinite chain of causes couldn’t be the case.  (There are other problems as well that I wont get into.)

My point:  The Cosmological Argument does have weaknesses…just not the one you tried critique.

A Christian Refutation of an Atheist Rant

I wrote the following in response to a blog that can be found by clicking here:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=170921713&blogId=484147304

Perhaps the best refutation of this blog, is the blog itself.

Throughout the blog some sort of secular humanistic value system is presupposed as self-evident and never explicitly stated or argued for.  It is merely considered to be true and then the author contrasts various religious systems and actions with it.

It can be readily granted to the author that a Christian moral system is drastically different than the secular humanistic one presupposed in the blog.  That isn’t any real “news-flash.”

The self-refutation is seen then, not in the contrasting of two different ethical systems…but rather in the conflicting underlying assumptions made by the author.

I find it ironic that Nietzsche was quoted in support of the author’s argument.  More consistent than many non-Christian philosophers, Nietzsche realized the implications of rejecting Christianity.  In a conversation concerning the epistemological foundations of language and the ultimate coherence through change that is necessary for us to make sense out of our experience, he makes this observation:

“I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in language.” - from Twilight of the Idols

The author of this blog presupposes a unity through change that a naturalistic metaphysical view cannot allow.  (He assumes this by the very act of using language to write the blog.)  The author’s statements about the nature of reality would no-doubt make (if carried out consistently) the use of language impossible.  

My observation here is admittedly abstract and doesn’t speak to the direct argument in the blog.  However, the same sort of self-contradictory assumptions are seen in the arbitrary application of this secular humanistic value system to situations in life…(situations like the raising of children, or the various other “bad” things alluded to in the blog.)

In short, if the author assumes a sort of utilitarian ethic (as many humanists are wont to do), then he will have no way to say that any of the actions he has listed are “wrong.”  He certainly wouldnt’ be able to make pronouncements on the ethical position of religion.  Consider this quote by humanist author Jeaneane D. Fowler:

…while humanists differ widley on matters of ethics, generally speaking the matter of ethics is neither presecriptive or absolute, nor relativist.  In fact a certain tension between these two opposites seems to pervade Humanist writing, and while all evade the former, to accept the latter as the other side of the coin would leave Humanism with no positive message at all.” http://books.google.com/books?id=z5k5A0_nFogC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=humanist+sins&source=bl&ots=8l-kMjBMR_&sig=YFOAGIL3seCh0HfaEF2nMCuCdes&hl=en&ei=HNQnSrWeHd2wtgfxiM21Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA213,M1 
quote from the chapter on Humanist ethics.

She realizes then that ethics must not be subjective (or as she says relativist.) But neither can the humanist allow an objective moral system to have a foot in the door.  Bertrand Russell realized the ultimate defeat of such a situation.  (See his essay “What I believe” in the chapter on “The Good Life” where he admits that he cannot say his concept of the good life is “true” he just hopes as many people follow it as possible.)

So then, in keeping with Russell’s conclusion concerning the futility of a utilitarian ethic (in regards to truth) it is impossible to say that “religion is wrong” with any authority.

All the author of this blog can do…(along with Russell) is admit that he doesn’t like certain religions, and hopes as many people as possible agree with him.

The fact that the author wants to pronounce all religions as “wrong” belies the fact that…as Nietzsche said…he still has faith in God.

An Epistemological Problem in Roman Catholic Exegesis

Second Vatican Council Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) chapter II statement 8 says:

And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_coun … um_en.html

The Shotgun paraphrase: The only way a person can properly interpret what the Bible says is by alluding to church tradition. (I realize this is taking liberties in simplification, but my restatement is fair enough to adequately highlight what I see as an epistemological problem inherent in Roman Catholic teaching concerning Scripture.)

Simply put, I agree with Jaques Derrida that “All the world is a text.” All of our experiences in the world must be first interpreted by us as subjects. This is necessarily so (if anyone objects, I can clarify this point in the resulting discussion.) However, God is the creator and sustainer of material reality, and thus, everything we humans interpret has already been interpreted by God. We are essentially re-interpreting the data. The Roman Catholic doctrine of interpretation (as stated above) places sinful man in the position of primary interpreter and as such, sinful man (in this case, the Roman Catholic Church) must dogmatically defend her conclusions.

I propose that the doctrine (as stated above) is impossible to live by consistently since Church tradition cannot interpret facts for individuals. Church tradition and authority is itself a fact that must be interpreted by the individual. Where then does the Roman Catholic turn? Are there councils devoted to adequately interpreting the initial councils? If so, then those councils would in turn need councils to clarify THEIR teaching…and so on ad infinitum. A rather daunting quandry I’d say.

The Psychedelic Standoff

What do you tell the little girl who walks outside with her hands on her hips…stares up at the noon-day sky and declares: “SOMEONE!!! SOMEONE SHOW ME THE SUN!!!” when all the while it is staring her in the face?  – quote from the charming and ruggedly handsome Shotgun.

Mr. HRG replies with all the civility and cleverness of the modern God-hater:

What do you tell the hallucinating man who is totally puzzled that you cannot see the colorful spirals that are staring him into the face?

Hint: Inanimate devices can objectively detect the sun, but will show a blank where spirals are allegedly seen. This resolves the question about what has a higher chance to be real. I’ll leave it to the reader to determine whether the proposed evidence for some god is more analogous to the evidence for the sun or to the evidence for the spirals.

Shotgun replies…

Ahhh,

But, Mr. HRG, you forget the rules of your own illustration.

An allusion to one set of colorful hallucinations, demonstrating their authoritative statements about other hallucinations…will not settle the fact in the mind of the (quite) patient gentlemen standing to the side observing…(or perhaps he is just a colorful hallucination as well?)

I realize that you meant to counter my illustration about the little girl, but it turns out that you’ve provided quite the illustrive noose for yourself.

The only resolution to this (psychedelic) standoff is for us to enter into the hallucination and wreak total havoc among the mirage of reasons we find there.

Perhaps the world does not consist of total colorful illusions at all, but is really the result of a cosmically irrational accident…with complex life arising spontaneously from mud puddles after getting hit by magical lightening? Suppose such were the case, and in this (frankly absurd) world…it is possible for some complex arrangements of atoms to have fancies about colorful lights?

If such were the case (and thank God it’s only an absurd illustration that no one would ever take seriously) then the man viewing the colorful swirls must be persuaded to give up his basic conviction about the nature of the swirls by a demonstration of the self-refuting nature of his illusory reality.

An appeal to the magical lightening and other such reasoning from the puddle will not…upon final examination…convince the unfortunate individual cursed with colorful hallucinations.

It seems like you and I, Mr. HRG, are stuck in our own psychedelic standoff.

Will you dare step into my colorful illusion with your metaphorical wrecking ball of reason?

Should you decide to do so…remember, turn about is fair play…and I have quite the wrecking ball.

A Critique of Robert T. Pennock’s Attempt to Arbitrarily Define Supernaturalism Out of Science

In Robert Pennocks’s article “Supernaturalist Explanations and the Prospects for a Theistic Science or “How do you know it was the Lettuce?” the attempt is made to arbitrarily define the supernatural out of a proper view of science.  (See his article here: https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_SupNatExpl.html )

 

 

Mr. Pennock is responding to a “Creationist” Phillip Johnson.

 

 

Pennock reconstructs Johnson’s argument like this:

 

 

Phillip Johnson argues that evolutionary theory rides on the metaphysical coat-tails of a scientific naturalism that denies by fiat any supernatural intervention, and that if it were not for this “dogmatic speculative philosophy” Creationism would be recognized as the better theory. He recommends that scientific naturalism be replaced by a theistic science that embraces the absolute truth of divine interventions in the world and incorporates supernatural explanations.

 

 

He responds by attempting to show that “Science” no more presupposes any sort of atheism than other common jobs like that of a plumber or doctor. He also wishes to distinguish between “methodological naturalism” and “metaphysical naturalism.” This distinction, it turns out, is a major foundation of his response.

It is misleading for Creationists to characterize science in general and to define evolution in particular and as being “godless.” Science is godless in the same way that plumbing is godless. Evolutionary biology is no more or less based on a “dogmatic philosophy” of naturalism than are medical science and farming. Why should Johnson find methodological naturalism so pernicious and threatening in the one context and not the others? Must we really be seriously “open-minded” about supernatural explanations generally? As Bertrand Russell said, it is good to keep an open mind, but not so open that our minds fall out! Surely it is unreasonable to complain of a “priesthood” of plumbers because they only consider naturalistic explanations of stopped drains and do not consider the “alternative hypothesis” that the origin of the backed-up toilet was the design of an intervening malicious spirit. Would it not be bizarre to reintroduce theistic explanations in the agricultural sciences and have agronomists tell farmers that their crop failure is simply part of God’s curse upon the land because of Adam’s disobedience, or suggest that they consider the possibility that the Lord is punishing them for some moral offense and that it may not be fertilizer they need but contrition and repentance?

 

He continues with this summary of what the proper role of Science should be:

 

 

Given the nature and limitations of scientific modes of investigation, the proper role of the scientist is to search for natural causes of such occurrences and not to beg off the investigation by attributing them to supernatural interventions, divine or otherwise. Clearly scientists are not being dogmatic or atheistic in proceeding under the methodological heuristic that such events have natural explanations.

 

He continues his argument by attempting a “reductio” of Johnson’s position by comparing it to the medical field. It would be silly to teach medical students how to perform exorcisms. According to Pennock however, such education would be necessarily required given the truth of Johnson’s position.

 

 

Pennock also presents a clever illustration about a lawyer who refuses to defend the civil rights of Jews. This particular lawyer does not happen to be a civil defense lawyer, and so Pennock argues, that it would be unfair of us to paint her as a bigot for not defending the civil rights of a Jew. This, he says, is what “Creationists” do when they accuse “Science” of being anti-God.

 

 

…science does not have a special rule just to keep out divine interventions, but rather a general rule that it does not handle any supernatural agents or powers.

 

 

He goes on to demonstrate that “Science” can have explanatory power by using an illustration about the sun. When asked “Why does the sun shine” two different meanings are possible. “Why” in the teleological sense is something for the poets (he says) while “why” in the genetic sense is the realm of science.

 

 

It is here that I can interject my criticism of Pennock.

 

 

I cannot find much to disagree with him about when it comes to the job of the plumber or doctor. These men do necessarily rely on their empirical sense perceptions in order to perform their daily tasks.

 

 

Is it true however, that in doing so, they are totally devoid of any position on God? I would assert rather, that their actions have very profound presuppositions concerning the nature of the universe and God.

 

 

When these implicit presuppositions are realized, then Pennock’s case falls apart.  His distinctions become nothing more than arbitrary assertions about the nature of reality; and worse, to perform science at all, he must contradict his own idea of methodological naturalism.

 

 

To put it simply, there is no such thing as methodological naturalism in principal. It is only an asserted position by the likes of Pennock. His opponents were correct to refer to it as “methodological atheism.”

 

 

When fixing pipes it is vital to remember certain physical laws of nature. We could begin by asking why the pipe is leaking. Speaking of this in a teleological way would be unhelpful to the plumber.

 

 

Is it true then, that to describe the leaky pipe in a genetic way does not require any position regarding the nature of God?

 

Well…in order to fix the leak, the plumber must keep a few things in mind. He can’t forget to bring his wrench under the house with him. Nor should he leave his sealant. He knows he needs these things because they have worked to fix leaks in the past. He realizes that if he uses these tools just right, he can fix the leak.

 

 

This reliance on past information to inform him about the future did not come about due to any empirical observation on the part of the plumber. Rather, he simply believes that the future will be like the past. (To say that reality has always acted so…and thus is reliable, is to claim that you simply believe it for that reason. My argument here is that it is not a belief based on empirical data, but rather on conclusions drawn from empirical data. It is impossible to observe the future being like the past.)

Here we see the first flaw in the plumber’s so called “methodological naturalism.” He is already, necessarily, presupposing certain conclusions that are not based on empirical data.

 

He must also presuppose the validity of his sense experiences. (You can base your belief in the reliability of your sense experiences on certain experiences you’ve had in the past…but this begs the question that your past experiences are reliable.)

 

 

He must also presuppose that abstract universal concepts have some form of union with random particular objects else he’d never know how to approach a leaky pipe. One particular leak may require duct tape and a wrench…another may require an Indian rain dance or a stick of dynamite.

 

 

I’ve listed three non-empirically verifiable (in principal) presuppositions that the plumber must hold before approaching the leaky pipe.

 

 

According to Pennock, such things are beyond the realm of scientific discussion. He also says that “Science” “has a general rule that it doesn’t handle any supernatural agents or powers.”

 

 

However, as I’ve just shown, the plumber necessarily approaches his task with at least three presuppositions regarding the nature of reality. Reality must be uniform (in order for future events to be like the past); reality must be intelligible (in order for him to know anything about it via his sense experiences); and there must be some form of union between abstract thoughts and particular objects in reality (in order for him to reason about his sense experiences.)

 

 

Christian Philosopher Greg Bahnsen concludes:

 

 

The activity of science is never impartial; there is always a substructure of metaphysical or religiously motivated belief. If there were not, science would be futile, its feet firmly planted in mid-air. The naturalistic scientist claims to work with “the facts.” Yet even to speak of “facts” is to make some metaphysical declaration concerning the existence of factuality itself. The only “honest” metaphysics for the philosopher who rejects God’s revelation is an agnostic solipsism, an “I-don’t-know-and-it-can’t-be-known-ism.” Yet, if there is one metaphysics besides Christianity that the scientist abhors, it is solipsism. But, on what basis can he discredit this “logical” position? What source of information can refute it? – http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa001.htm

 

 

I would assert along with Dr. Bahnsen, that only the Christian God can provide for these preconditions.

 

Even if such a bold claim were rejected, it is still clear that Mr. Pennock was careless in assuming that a naturalistic procedure could exist without alluding to metaphysical or even spiritual issues.

Can Christian Theism Defeat Arrogant Humanism?

(I’ve been really active over at the ILovePhilosophy web forums recently.  There is a skeptic who is adamantly opposed to Christianity.  He made a post called:  “Can NeuroScience Defeat Theism?”  In his post, he makes outrageous assertions about the state of “theism.”  I thought I’d respond by starting a little thread of my own…Ohhhhh this one is going to cause some of those folks to get their panties in a bunch…I hope you guys enjoy…)

I am convinced that humanism (in all of its philosophical expression) is utterly defeated on all fronts.

There are still vestiges of it lingering around college campuses (as well as arrogant organizations like National Geographic, and “Skeptic” magazine) where philosophical consistency is no longer demanded or applauded…(this mindset is passed from the philosopher down to the common forum participant.)

But does humanism (in its recent popular form of atheistic materialism…pragmatism, or naturalism) have anything useful left to contribute to society at large, or will Christian theism continue its historical trend of domination and regain its place as the sole epistemological authority in society?

To help clarify my point, consider this statement by popular existentialist Albert Camus discussing the consequences of Existentialism:

If nothing is true, if the world is without order, then nothing is forbidden; to prohibit an action, there must, in fact, be a standard of values and an aim. But, at the same time, nothing is authorized; there must also be values and aims in order to choose another course of action. Absolute domination by the law does not represent liberty, but no more does absolute anarchy.

Thus the secular “post-Kantian” philosopher is driven to complete irrationality for the sake of his own freedom. But what happens when man reaches this state? Camus says this:

“At the point where it is no longer possible to say what is black and what is white, the light is extinguished and freedom becomes a voluntary prison.” (Quotes from Camus: The Rebel, 71.)

Thus by placing the mind of man as the ultimate epistemological authority, man is left a prisoner of his own longed for freedom. A freedom consisting of complete non-motion.

This drive towards complete non-motion…or “death” is clearly seen in the writings of Sartre.

“Sartre’s philosophy is a cool demonstration that destructiveness is no accident but an ontological necessity and that all human experience is founded upon nothingness.” - Jean Wahl “A Short History of Existentialism.”

Satre himself admits that existentialism will destroy genius, art, and ultimately the individual himself. (Existentialism and Human Emotions page 33.) He says repeatedly that man is existence without essence. That is the goal of man.

In light of the dramatic and negative ends of a humanistic worldview, does Christian theism leave anything to it (humanism) that may be beneficial or could possibly have value?

I say “no.”

What do you guys think?

Problematic Christians and Consistent Texts, Vol II

Brian Greene is quickly becoming one of my favorite “science writers.” Consider the brief summary of his book “The Fabric of the Cosmos”: Space and time form the very fabric of the cosmos. Yet they remain among the most mysterious of concepts. Is space an entity? Why does time have a direction? Could the universe exist without space and time? Can we travel to the past? From Newton’s unchanging realm in which space and time are absolute, to Einstein’s fluid conception of spacetime, to quantum mechanics’ entangled arena where vastly distant objects can instantaneously coordinate their behavior, Greene takes us all, regardless of our scientific backgrounds, on an irresistible and revelatory journey to the new layers of reality that modern physics has discovered lying just beneath the surface of our everyday world. Greene surveys the various secular conceptions of reality, and paints for us all a very entertaining and informative picture of what modern scientist generally agree is the “Fabric of the Cosmos”… at least for the moment. He says this in his preface: …on the perplexing question of whether completely empty space is, like a blank canvas, a real entity or merely an abstract idea, we follow the pendulum of scientific opinion as it swings between Isaac Newton’s seventeenth-century declaration that space is real, Ernst Mach’s conclusion in the nineteenth century that it isn’t, and Einstein’s twentieth-century dramatic reformulation of the question itself, in which he merged space and time, and largely refuted Mach. We then encounter subsequent discoveries that transformed the question once again by redefining the meaning of “empty,” envisioning that space is unavoidably suffused with what are called quantum fields of possibility a diffuse uniform energy called a cosmological constant… We can see that in the secular realm, there have been various different conceptions of the nature of reality over the years. I’d like to point out that most likely (at least in my experience) the Non-Christian Google Scholar will fall into two categories, the more interesting of which, will hold to some view of reality as briefly hinted at by Brian Greene in the above survey. The other, less interesting NCGS is usually the zealous Muslim apologist, who’s favorite polemic tends to be a constant barrage of attacks against the sufficiency and infallibility of Christian scripture. Thus, for the remainder of my post (at least here in Vol II) I’ll be discussing that NCGS, ranging between the ages of 15 to latter twenties (and beyond, as is the case with Mr. PaineFull Truth…who inspired the title of my series of articles) who approaches a critique of the Biblical text with a presupposed metaphysic of the like Mr. Greene describes. Among these varying secular views, it is very unusual to find a laymen of the NCGS type who has a specific preference among the nuances of thought. They usually just affirm the truth of the most up-to-date thought on the matter, and allude to it as gospel truth. (Again, this is speaking from experience.) Given the above, it’s possible for me to highlight a few similarities that these NCGS will have in their view of reality, and point out how these similarities, if presupposed and applied consistently, would make any sort of reasoning impossible, (let alone speculation about biblical texts.) While I take issue with C.S. Lewis on some things, I find the following quote to be a great introduction into my point here: “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never found out that it has no meaning.” A random universe, suffused with order at key points is the ultimate presupposition of the NCGS, and thus, the material realm (whatever it may consist of) is all that exists and all that exist can only be interpreted and predicated by the NCGS. When he approaches the Biblical text, it is with this naturalistic presupposition firmly in place. Therefore, when the Biblical text claims to reveal a truth from beyond this natural realm, or when it posits events that are outside the realm of normal operations within this natural realm, the NCGS is naturally inclined to be skeptical. Also, contrary to the God taught in scripture, the NCGS does not believe that God is consistent. Since God is not consistent, His words are not necessarily able to be harmonized, and thus any attempt to do so is neglected at the outset. When viewed by the NCGS, the text becomes rife with contradictions, and inconsistencies. However, as I’ve claimed…the very universe the NCGS presupposes leads to his downfall. In such a universe, knowledge and rational speculation about texts is impossible. Before the Bible can be read, the NCGS must first prove the legitimacy of his own empirical observations, as well as the validity of past observations in future predictions. (Humes problem of induction.) Also, the age old philosophical problem of the “One and the Many” must be surmounted. It is only by dropping this naturalistic view of reality and accepting a Christian metaphysic (which presupposes the Triune God of scripture) that the above problems can be surmounted in a way that will allow for discussion of the scriptures in the first place. I suspect that our resulting conversation will expose the truth of my above case…unless you guys would just like to take my word for it…

Problematic Christians and Consistent Bible Text, Vol I

It is an oft made claim that various Bible passages contradict each other and cause “problems” for Christians.

In fact, a quick Google search reveals entire websites devoted to highlighting these supposed “contradictions.”

With all of today’s Google scholars prowling around the internet, it’s no surprise that many of these “contradictions” repeatedly pop up, making life hard for the Christian apologist.

Of course many books have been written in defense of the Christian doctrine of scripture.  I find myself agreeing with the Princeton theologians like Charles Hodge, and B.B. Warfield, as well as (and specifically) Cornelius Van Til, who in the tradition of the Dutch Calvinists, draws a particularly strong case.

A quick illustration will clarify the uniqueness of Van Til. 

Suppose the Christian apologist is in a room with the non-Christian Google scholar (NCGS).  The NCGS has a gun, filled with freshly googled Bible contradictions, primed and aimed straight at the heart of the apologist.

The apologist may dodge the first bullet.  He may dodge the second.  But, pretty soon, one of the bullets will hit him.  I used to spend my time studying each and every supposed “contradiction” thought up by the NCGS in order to effectively explain it away, but inevitably, someone out there would always come up with one I hadn’t studied, and thus would consider the debate won.

After awhile, I got tired of all the elephant hurling and out of context quote mining.  I eventually ran across the arguments of Van Til, and the Princeton Theologians. 

Now, instead of dodging bullets, I find it much easier to wrest the gun away from the NCGS, and knock him out with it.

You see, the real conflict between the apologist and the NCGS is not one of content or “fact” but rather one of the interpretation of the content and “fact.”  This is true at base with all conflicting worldviews.

I, as a Christian, have a completely different epistemology than that of the NCGS (many of which have no idea what epistemology even is.) 

Thus, we will find ourselves arguing all day over every single fact of our existence.  Suppose I adequately explain and harmonize every single word, jot, and tittle of the Bible to the NCGS?  He would then go on to challenge me on every single fact of our existence.  It would be a never ending collision between two opposing worldviews.

Much better, would be to directly attack the NCGS’s foundational assumptions that he uses to read the Bible to begin with, and, (like in the illustration) use those very assumptions against him, demonstrating that these very assumptions disqualify him from even talking about the Bible to begin with.

I’ll show how this is done specifically, in Vol II…assuming there is interest of course.

God Bless