Mar 01
While debating with a fellow Brother in Christ whether Darwinian evolution could be reconciled with the creation account of Genesis I was recently asked whether it’s plausible the earth could have been created with the appearance of age. Here’s my response:
The short answer is: no.
Simply put; it is impossible for God to lie according to Hebrews 6:18 and deliberate deception surely falls into that category.
That said, I do agree with you that the earth is, in all likelihood, far older than 10,000 years and animals did probably live and die long before the Genesis account of creation.
I hold to a modified version of the gap theory and have no problems with long time frames or the notion of micro-evolution or change within a species.
However, when it comes to humans, we are told that mankind began with a literal Adam and a literal Eve. Jesus himself also confirms that life began with a literal Adam and Eve in the New Testament, and if he was mistaken then we have much bigger problems (of the theological nature) to deal with.
I wholly agree that there is much we don’t know. But there are things we do know (especially things that have been revealed to us by an omniscient being) and we should strive to keep our beliefs between the lines (so to speak) of what has been clearly revealed. Speculation on the rest (like why God created the mosquito) is all well and good.
However, since science has been proven faulty far more than God has (not that the two are inherently at odds) so I suggest that a wise approach would be to not allow our scientific findings to color our theology. Mostly because it generally leads to the unfortunate consequence of revising our theology every time scientists change their minds/interpretations.
Tagged with: appearance of age • cosmology • creation • genesis • origins • universe • young earth
Feb 22
I’ve been thinking about the recent court case in California to repeal Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage ((Actually, it was really more a positive affirmation of what marriage has been understood to be for centuries due to the provocation of the radical and aggressive agenda of the GLBT movement.)) and I’ve come up with a few questions for the GLBT community.
I am curious to know why the GLBT community thinks this is immoral and not fair that the citizens of California voted overwhelmingly to include specific language (12 words to be precise) into their state’s constitution which concretely defines marriage to be between a man and a woman.
I wonder where they derive their ethical standards for fairness and morality.
I can easily see where the civil rights movement grounded their campaign that all men are created equal specifically in a Christian world view. Essentially, they believed (rightly in my opinion) that there was a natural law that superseded the government’s laws. This case in CA, and the stubborn refusal to accept defeat by the GLBT community, raises a very precarious question; Where do they ground their objections and why are we morally obligated to obey such a standard?
However I fail to see how members of the GLBT community are being devalued as human beings for being denied the imaginary “right” they never had. I also fail to see where diversity (in the strict sense of accepting all human beings as equal in value) is challenged by refusing to accept all practices and lifestyles.
For excellent coverage on the whole proposition 8 fiasco, I highly recommend the podcasts from The Ruth Institute by Jennifer Roeback Morse. Also, here’s a great overview post by Wintry Knight.
Tagged with: california • gay marriage • GLBT • homosexuality • proposition 8
Feb 17
I’ve been reading Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov on the way to work in the mornings and this passage from the first book really struck me as an excellent depiction of socialism and why it is embraced by a secular society. Emphesis mine.
The path Alyosha chose was a path going in the opposite direction, but he chose it with the same thirst for swift achievement. As soon as he reflected seriously he was convinced of the existence of God and immortality, and at once he instinctively said to himself: “I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no compromise.” In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would at once have become an atheist and a socialist. For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth. Alyosha would have found it strange and impossible to go on living as before. It is written: “Give all that thou hast to the poor and follow Me, if thou wouldst be perfect.”
Read the whole chapter here.
Tagged with: atheist • faith • social justice • socialism • utopia
Feb 03
Here’s a quote by Robert Jastro that I’ve heard in several debates around the compatibility of science and religion.
[HT Brian]
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
- Robert Jastrow
(God and the Astronomers, W.W. Norton, New York, 1978, p. 116)
Tagged with: cosmology • epistemology • faith • religion • science
Feb 01
One of the biggest issues regarding the way many progressives view humans in relation to the environment is the fact that while many are wholly committed to Darwinian evolution, they somehow see man as a virus that is somehow outside the system.
This type of mentality is very clear when you consider the biggest cry from environmentalists regarding places like ANWR or National Parks is “just leave them alone” as if any development by men were destructive and harmful.
If we approach the issue of environmentalism with the notion that man is a virus then we loose from the outset due to a bad phrasing of the question.
What we need to do is approach the question of environmentalism from the standpoint of being good stewards of the environment along with the notion that some Christians will have honest disagreements on the subject and that those disagreements do not make the other side sinful or less holy.
For more information on this topic, I highly recommend a conference recently held at Southeastern Theological Seminary titled “Creation Care”.
Tagged with: creation care • environmentalism • global warming
Jan 27
Philosophical presuppositions are ideas and beliefs we hold, consciously or unconsciously, which affect the way we interpret facts and evidence. In short, our philosophical presuppositions affect how we reason.
Many people are completely unaware of their philosophical presuppositions which is unfortunate since awareness of our philosophical presuppositions helps us better understand the arguments made by others who are often approaching a topic or subject from a completely different philosophical presupposition. Being aware of our presuppositions also helps us address the root of our differences with others rather than the outlying branches or surface issues.
Without addressing the fundamental differences in our world views what we end up managing to produce is more confusion and hard feelings than meaningful communication with others who hold fundamentally different presuppositions than we do.
Tagged with: belief • epistemology • faith • knowledge • presuppositions • reason
Jan 25
I recently debated the relationship between libertarian freedom and God’s sovereignty with a dean of a reformed seminary in Colorado Springs. During our discussion He told me that libertarian freedom is a myth. Here’s my response:
To claim that libertarian free will is a myth is to introduce a logical paradox in that we disagree, where do our disagreements and confusion come from if not from our own free wills/minds? Either we (and everything) is causally controlled (not just determined from eternity past) or we aren’t. If we are, and if you maintain that God is the puppeteer, then God becomes the one who essentially disagrees with himself.
You also seem to be confused (as evidenced by the host of straw men you’ve managed to manufacture) as to the motives behind the desire of people like myself to uphold the doctrine of libertarian freedom. You seem to think, along lines common to many Calvinists I’ve noticed, that my motives are to lower God or exalt man. Nothing could be farther from the truth which is quite the opposite. If we slaughter libertarian freedom (which includes the power to act against God’s wishes/will) then you end up pinning all sin, destruction, evil, etc. on God which, as Job’s friends quickly found out, brings God no glory.
The bottom line is that while not verse in Scripture trumps another, it is our sacred duty to uphold all of the tenets of Scripture (including libertarian freedom and God’s predestining) with equal tenacity. If we uphold one aspect of God’s character above others we bring God no glory and do not do justice to a faithful and honest search for truth. God’s love or creative choice to allow conscious beings other than himself to exist is in no conflict with his sovereignty, omnipotence, or omniscience.
Tagged with: causal determinism • determinism • free will • libertarian free will • paradox
Jan 20
Counterfactuals are statements about “what might have been” regarding an event in time had circumstances been different.
Counterfactual statements are characterized by the conditional keywords “if-then”, as in “if Obama had not raised the national debt to record levels, unemployment would have been much higher.”
The “counter” part of a “counterfactual” statement is that such a statement may be true even through the event described never happened (or “obtained”). The value of such statements is only apparent if one assumes a non-causally deterministic view of the universe where different circumstances (or decisions by causal agents) could have caused events to turn out differently.
Counterfactuals are intergal to the Molinistic view of the relationship between the sovereignty of God and the limited causal agency of man (in other words, limited free will). Specifically, counterfactuals are what give us reason to believe in the existence of logically possible worlds and the notion that while God certainly does predestine all that happens there exist truly free, albeit limited, causal agents such as humans and angels.
Verses that point to the existence of counterfactual (statements that can only be valid if there were a logically possible world where the events described would have obtained if circumstances were different) are 1 Samuel 23:6-10, Matthew 11:23, 1 Corinthians 2:8, John 15:22-24, John 18:36, Luke 4:24-46 and Matthew 26:24
Note that each of the above statements would be rendered incoherent if they were not true in their counter (not obtained) factual (proposition of truth).
Tagged with: causal determinism • counterfactual • free will • libertarian freedom • modal logic • molinism • possible worlds
Jan 19
A recent article on the excellent Intelligent design website, Uncommon Decent, made the case that intelligent design is not simply warmed over creationism and that some ID proponents even hold to common decent.
Many, many people seem to misunderstand the relationship between Intelligent Design and Common Descent. Some view ID as being equivalent to Progressive Creationism (sometimes called Old-Earth Creationism), others seeing it as being equivalent to Young-Earth Creationism. Ihave argued before that the core of ID is not about a specific theory of origins. In fact, many ID’ers hold a variety of views including Progressive Creationism and Young-Earth Creationism.
But another category that is often overlooked are those who hold to both ID and Common Descent, where the descent was purely naturalistic. This view is often considered inconsistent. My goal is to show how this is a consistent proposition.
The author goes on to argue that, while he personally is not an adherent of the theory of common decent, a person who holds to ID is well within their epistemic grounds and how intelligent design does not require one to hold specific beliefs in regard to the nature of the designer.
This will hopefully help dispel the myth that intelligent design is merely warmed over creationism as an attempt to sneak Biblical Christianity into the public classroom.
Read the rest of the article here.
Tagged with: cosmology • creationism • intelligent design • origins of the universe
Jan 18
A friend of mine recently asked what, if any, impact the belief in causal determinism (or lack thereof) has in practical day-to-day living. Here’s my answer:
Well, one example to the contrary is this:
I never locked my doors.
This was because I believed that men had no free will and that not only were all things determined, but that they were causally and directly brought about by God. So that, if someone were to break into my house or steal my car, or even if I or someone I loved were to become ill, such an event or circumstance would be directly caused by God himself so that any interference would be bad and wrong.
As you know, this view didn’t serve me very well practically and the realization that we are commanded to take reasonable measures to secure what we are in charge of or responsible for (which includes people as well as possessions) led me to change my beliefs which, in turn, made me change my behavior.
I now lock my doors as religiously as I kept them unlocked because my belief in causal determinism vs. limited freedom changed.
Tagged with: calvinism • causal determinism • determinism • life • molinism
