This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Last month I noted the anti-science brainwashing that dominates the religiously influenced textbooks available for homeschoolers. In particular, I cited a biology textbook that claims a "Christian worldview ... is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is." I said that anyone who thinks my daughter's eternal salvation hinges on her answers on a science test is peddling bad theology.
Pastor Shel Boese appears to agree. He contends pretty strongly that choosing creationism over evolution is not a salvation issue. He also points to Internet Monk, who points to Biblical scholar Bruce Waltke, who says the Church must come to accept evolution:
Waltke cautions, “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”
We are at a unique moment in history where “everything is coming together,” says Waltke, and conversations—like those initiated by BioLogos—are positive developments. “I see this as part of the growth of the church,” he says. “We are much more mature by this dialogue that we are having. This is how we come to the unity of the faith—by wrestling with these issues.”
Waltke points out that to deny scientific reality would be to deny the truth of God in the world. For us as Christians, this would serve as our spiritual death because we would not be loving God with all of our minds. It would also be our spiritual death in witness to the world because we would not be seen as credible ["Why Must the Church Come to Accept Evolution?" The BioLogos Foundation, 2010.03.24].
If you believe in God, then you have to believe in the whole package. He isn't just bunnies and rainbows and the occasional plague on your enemies. He is in the Pythagorean Theorem. He is in quarks and DNA. He is in every atom of the world, and you have to understand that world in full, through science, not just through your pre-conceived notions.
As Internet Monk says to his fellow believers, "I am so over this aspect of culture war Christianity. Let’s grow up."
It is true that one can believe in evolution and still be a Christian. Not too many years ago, I was one such ignorant Christian.
ReplyDeleteNot only did I realize how unscientific, illogical and unsupportable evolution theory is, I also didn't realize how its claims are totally incompatible with many fundamental doctrines of Christianity, e.g. original sin, the curse of sin, the fallen nature of man, the reason Christ had to sacrifice himself to redeem humanity, the strong statements of the Bible regarding the relatively recent creation of all life on earth, etc.
Once I started to learn about these things, however, I realized belief in both evolution and creation were incompatible. The question then was which belief system was most reliable, most logical, and best lined up with the available evidence.
After some consideration, I realized that belief was creation.
Evolution faces many insurmountable hurdles regarding its claims. Many key tenets of evolution theory require events which are not only unobserved and unsupported by science, but actually run counter to scientific laws. Matter does not come from nothing. Life does not spring from lifeless materials. Organisms have never been observed to change from one type of organism into another, or even to gain additional, useful, and more complex genetic information.
Thus, I realized evolution theory is illogical within its own framework of assumptions, and is very unscientific.
Creation, on the other hand, is completely logical within the framework of its own assumptions, seeking to understand the scientific laws and principles behind the author of science: God himself.
In the end, both evolutionists and creationists employ assumptions which spring from their own particular worldview. But I've found that it is the materialist/ naturalist/ evolutionist worldview that is irrational and unscientific. And creationism better fits and explains the available evidence.
Go ahead: give real science a try!
I agree, real science should receive acknowledgment in all schools. Can I count on Global Warming being removed at the same time as Creationism
ReplyDeleteHere's Bob's idea of airtight logic:
ReplyDeleteBob: The Bible is the truth, the Word of God.
Questioner: How do you know?
Bob: God says so.
Questioner: Really? Do you have any evidence of that?
Bob: Yes.
Questioner: Can you show it to me?
Bob: Yes, just read the Bible.
3 more questions for Ellis:
ReplyDeleteBob, do you think the Bible is a history book?
Do you have to believe in the Bible to be a Christian?
Do you believe that the universe is 6,000 years old?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBob loves literalism, I urge him to follow Matthew 19:12 and become a Eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (at least one early literalist promptly castrated himself upon reading it). Does he also believe Isaiah 55:12 actually describes the mountains and hills breaking into song and the trees clapping their hands? There is also no feasable way to accept the story of Noah's Arc in anything like a literal manner.
ReplyDeleteEvolution does not answer all questions and may be completely wrong on some points. Creationism offers no rational answers to anything (lots of answers, just not the rational kind)
That is Bill's obtuse explanation, not mine. And Bill is too addicted to prepackaged pop-culture pablum that requires no chewing to waste additional time on.
ReplyDeleteAnd Roger, while you show great promise at times, I'm disappointed to see you join this host of fools in their myopic folly. You will never see see any rational explanations for anything so long as you embrace childish distortions of what the Bible says. Closed eyes will never see anything. I hope you'll take the time later to consider what I said with an open mind.
But none of this is any real surprise: this is what happens when pearls are cast before swine.
(Again, Bob's gross self-absorption declares his statements "pearls" and the rest of us "swine".)
ReplyDeleteThe real pearls here came from Pastor Shel. An ordained pastor. A man who has studied more theology than anyone else in this room. A spiritual leader who not only isn't afraid of evolution but recognizes the need to embrace real science to fully love God.
While some on this thread question me being a Christian, I would like to make some comments from my Christian perspective.
ReplyDeleteSince most of the roots of modern science and the principal of the scientific method were developed by devout people of faith, notably Bacon, Copernicus, Newton, Galileo et. al., I always find it ironic that those who oppose Christianity seem to think there is a disconnect or inherent conflict between pursuit of scientific truth and Truth.
“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” – Pope John Paul II
This said, Watke's expertise is as a Biblical Scholar. His views with regard to science hold no more weight than mine, Corey's, Bob's or Bill's. All of us would be wise not to look for particular views that agree with our position as we pursue the truth without being willing to accept information which conflicts with our current understanding.
The bigger issue in all this has to be the word "believe." "Believe to be true" doesn't mean "think to be true" or "wish it to be true" or "percieve it to be true."
"I believe" means "I understand" AND "I stand". In other words, I understand it and will stand for it.
Will I stand up and face criticism and questioning for something I percieve? Of course not. Or will I stand up and face criticism and questioning for something I don't understand? Of course not.
What we have to remember is the "Theory of Evolution" is still a theory because there is insufficient scientific evidence for it to be deemed a scientific law, like the Law of Gravity.
Thus, using the correct definition of "believe" nobody has enough understanding to say they believe in Evolution, only they think it to be true based on what they think or perceive or even know (understanding their knowledge may be incomplete). And, if they are true scientists dedicated to reason, they must be open to evidence which may disprove it.
Part 1
Now to the issue of the Bible, here are some facts.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible was canonized by the Church in 393, 397, and 419. Thus, the Bible gets its authority from the Church. In fact, the Bible itself says in 1 Timothy 3:15 says the Church is the "bulwark and pillar of Truth."
So where does the Church get its authority. Principally from the 11 apostles who died not with faith that Christ is Lord, Savior and Messiah but with knowledge as they witnessed his Resurrection (Unlike the rest of us, they had direct knowledge). And, these apostles got their authority direct from Christ, the Son of God, who they know is Risen, yes Risen indeed.
Thus to answer some questions (I think the above addressed Bill's "dialogue with Bob") posed by Bill to Bob:
Do you think the Bible is a history book? While containing history and historical revelation, it is more than history, a conversation between God and His people so His people may know Him.
Do you have to believe in the Bible to be a Christian? I believe in the Triune God. I believe the Bible to be the Word of God.
As mere humans, one may not "understand" the Bible because it is the Word of God and infinitely beyond us. Thus, they can't "believe" it but they must accept it to be the Word of God and what is written it is true inerrant revelation from God.
Do you believe that the universe is 6,000 years old? I have insufficient personal understanding of science which dates the earth but what I do believe is the God is outside time and space, He created the earth "ex nihelio" or out of nothing, and what mechanism He used is not relevant to my belief and faith in God, and that the scientific truth (vs. theory) of the age of the earth will never conflict with the Truth.
While I understand to some degree where Bob is coming from because some atheists try to use scientific theories and truth as an attempt to disprove God's existence, I don't understand why the pursuit of understanding of the earth's genesis has to be fight between scientists and people of faith.
Scientists should be pursuing truth whereever it leads them, even if it leads them essentially to Creationism. Concurrently, I don't understand why people of faith are so fearful of where honest scientific research leads. God is who He says He is (I AM WHO AM).
His Creation will not lie, including scientific fact.
Now to the issue of the Bible, here are some facts.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible was canonized by the Church in 393, 397, and 419. Thus, the Bible gets its authority from the Church. In fact, the Bible itself says in 1 Timothy 3:15 says the Church is the "bulwark and pillar of Truth."
So where does the Church get its authority. Principally from the 11 apostles who died not with faith that Christ is Lord, Savior and Messiah but with knowledge as they witnessed his Resurrection (Unlike the rest of us, they had direct knowledge). And, these apostles got their authority direct from Christ, the Son of God, who they know is Risen, yes Risen indeed.
Thus to answer some questions (I think the above addressed Bill's "dialogue with Bob") posed by Bill to Bob:
Do you think the Bible is a history book? While containing history and historical revelation, it is more than history, a conversation between God and His people so His people may know Him.
Do you have to believe in the Bible to be a Christian? I believe in the Triune God. I believe the Bible to be the Word of God.
As mere humans, one may not "understand" the Bible because it is the Word of God and infinitely beyond us. Thus, they can't "believe" it but they must accept it to be the Word of God and what is written it is true inerrant revelation from God.
Do you believe that the universe is 6,000 years old? I have insufficient personal understanding of science which dates the earth but what I do believe is the God is outside time and space, He created the earth "ex nihelio" or out of nothing, and what mechanism He used is not relevant to my belief and faith in God, and that the scientific truth (vs. theory) of the age of the earth will never conflict with the Truth.
While I understand to some degree where Bob is coming from because some atheists try to use scientific theories and truth as an attempt to disprove God's existence, I don't understand why the pursuit of understanding of the earth's genesis has to be fight between scientists and people of faith.
Scientists should be pursuing truth whereever it leads them, even if it leads them essentially to Creationism. Concurrently, I don't understand why people of faith are so fearful of where honest scientific research leads. God is who He says He is (I AM WHO AM).
His Creation will not lie, including scientific fact.
It's consistent with his circular reasoning on virtually every position, Cory. God wrote the Bible because God says so, ...besides, it's in the Bible. Bob's right about everything because Bob says so.... Same same.
ReplyDeleteObviously he's not read his Kurt Gödel. (Now there's some pop-culture pablum for ya, Bob.)
http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
One final comment: Many former atheist scientists ultimately came to believe in a God because of their scientific pursuits. Albert Einstein is one who ultimately became a theist. While he never came to embrace the Trinity as Christians understand and stand (believe) in God, he did come to believe in a transcendent "First Cause."
ReplyDeleteUntil any of us exceed the scientific understanding of Einstien, we should be hesitant to use science as "proof" there is no God.
That was beautiful, Troy. Makes quantum mechanics look like child's play.
ReplyDeleteTheology knows no bounds, science must.
Christ has been co-opted by the most sinister forces in human history; just look at the European cut of His likenesses in Art.
Exposing hypocritheocracy is a just jihad.
ip
Technically Troy – Gravity is just a theory. We don’t understand how it works (deformed space-time, quantum particles, some behavior of the strong nuclear force at a distance) but we can predict its behavior given sufficient data. But if you jump to the old “Newton’s Law of Gravity” all we can say for sure is that Newton was wrong. That’s why Einstein had to come up with Special and General Relativity.
ReplyDeleteAll the physical “Laws” we talk about are really just theories. Long standing, well established theories, but theories never the less. If evolution wasn’t such a hot button issue outside of the scientific community, it would be talked about as the “Law of Evolution” by now.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteGood point. Most of science is differing degrees of surety of theories. But I do think there are some deemed sufficiently concrete to be called laws based on the depth of their evidence.
I do disagree that Evolution would be a Law until more evidence is found (ala a missing link) or further understanding about how certain DNA etc. can "evolve" into new DNA. (I might not be correctly using DNA as an example as I am not a scientist. I just know nobody has really explained how the most basic make-up of different life could have developed into other life).
Because of Gravities proven "predictability" it is certainly farther along the continuum between hypothesis, theory, and law.
"scientific truth (vs. theory) of the age of the earth will never conflict with the Truth."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. Therefore when confronted with facts that at the very least appear to be in direct contradiction to your understanding of the bible's history should you assume the facts and understanding of science must be flawed or do you assume your understanding of biblical knowledge is flawed. There isn't a right answer to this other than neither perspective should be clung to for no reason than a fear of challenging one's own faith.
Troy, good thoughts. A few minor points of clarifications. First, as it pertains to miracles, the Bible cannot be a "history" book in the sense that historians, like scientists are bound by their craft to support their assertions with the most plausible, reasonable evidence.
ReplyDeleteThat said, miracles are, by definition, events that cannot be explained, and for which there can be no evidence. A historian or a scientist will note that none of the books of the bible were written by the apostles since they are reputed to have been illiterate and in any case, spoke Aramaic, not Greek. The chances that they became literate enough to write Greek fluently after the resurrection is perhaps possible, but not plausible... i.e. not the most reasonable of explanations.
Second, as you affirm, the Church (i.e. men, not God) determined the Canon some 300 years after the fact of Jesus' life and death selecting among many books the texts to be included based on antiquity, catholicity, and orthodoxy, among other criteria.
A study of the early church will reveal that there a number of belief systems among Christians in the early years of the Faith, the now "orthodox" position being just one among them. Hence the need for the Council of Nicea, etc. So again, the reason our current Canon is considered orthodox is because the orthodox believers said so. Men, not God. One would assume that an all knowing, omnipotent God wrote ALL the books, not just these select few.
As you say, this is perhaps beyond our rational understanding, but there it is.
In any case, none of the Creeds to which all Christians subscribe mention belief in the Bible as requisite for the profession of Faith, and with good reason. There WAS no New Testament at the time of Christ.
And further to believe in the literal writings of a few men, oftentimes mistakenly translated, and heavily edited, would be tantamount to idolatry, and in any case far from the same thing as having faith in the living Lord.
Roger,
ReplyDeleteIt is very difficult to answer without knowing what "facts" and what "understanding" in the Bible you are talking about.
Maybe this is your example:
We have various scientific "facts" which indicate the earth and the universe is millions of years old.
Yet the Bible says the world was created in six days and based on information in the Bible history began 6,000 years ago.
Various answers to reconcile the two:
1) 6,000 years ago the world was created and God by His power accelerated millions of years of natural processes in a day giving "evidence" of millions/billions of years when it never really happened in an effort to show His power and glory.
2) The Creation story includes allegory of the time prior to Adam and Eve and the ensoulment of man.
3) Something that I can't imagine or science can't discern but my inability to imagine what actually occurred or science to discern doesn't negate the existence of Einstien's trancendant Deity but only gives greater evidence (using Occam's Razor)
p.s. Troy, for a good, solid, layman's read on Evolution theory, try Richard Dawkins's "The Greatest Show on Earth." Yes, Dawkins is an atheist, but don't let that stop you. You don't have to "believe" in any of it. He doesn't. Real scientists don't roll like that.
ReplyDeleteBill,
ReplyDeleteLet me make some clarifications knowing some more fundamentalist Christians may disagree with some of my comments (but I won't allow them to hold to their own facts such as the process of canonization of the Bible):
Historians report what occurred. They don’t have to explain them or justify their plausibility. Thousands of people observed the miracles enumerated in the Bible and there is not a single contemporary writing which refutes their occurrence. In fact, even Christ’s accusers didn’t deny what occurred. They just attributed it to demons. Some might deny what occurred was a miracle but to deny they occurred would make the Bible the best historical conspiracy in history. Except for the conspiracy nuts, conspiracies that require more than a few co-conspirators are ultimately exposed.
Luke and Acts of the Apostles was written by a physician who interviewed many players directly. Although I’m not a scholar, Luke seems to have had direct access to Mary, Peter, and other Apostles. I don’t recall who Mark was. Mathew was the former tax collector and Apostle. John was an Apostle. Most of the Epistles were written by Paul who was formerly a persecutor of Christ. And, the other books written by Apostles or maybe direct disciples who were there (I am not an expert on who all authors were). Authorship are not facts dismissed by many, even non-believing Bible scholars. Your assertion these people aren’t the authors isn’t supported by any standards of historical thought.
But, you are right, we have translations of probably Aramic, Hebrew and some Greek to Greek, into Latin, and ultimately into the vernacular, including English. But something you ignore about the Bible texts. For three hundred years, the “Bible” was hand copied copies of copies of copies distributed throughout Christendom to be read at Mass.
While there was some reconciliation of the versions brought from around the world to be compiled at Hippo, Carthage and somewhere else (it slips my mind), what is truly miraculous is the various versions were virtually identical between what the Greek, African, and European regions held as inerrant text. You try to spread something over three hundred years across regions, peoples, and languages and then recompile them and get so little variation.
Men, representing God and His Church “determined the Canon some 300 years after the fact of Jesus' life and death selecting among many books the texts to be included.” But, I disagree with your comment it was “based on antiquity, catholicity, and orthodoxy, among other criteria.” There was one over-riding criteria: Consensus of what had remained consistent over time as read at Mass (the only access to Scripture in the Early Church) throughout Christendom. If it had been rejected over time, recently introduced as Scripture or only read in certain regions, it was deemed not “inspired” and rejected.
Part 1 of 2
Furthermore, what was selected by these hundreds of Bishops was selected with virtually no dissent. You try to pass something as significant as this with no dissent and see what you get left with.
ReplyDeleteI love the argument to diminish the Bible “the reason our current Canon is considered orthodox is because the orthodox believers said so” because it is so easy to refute. If Christ created a Church as the Deposit of the Faith, they have the obligation to determine orthodoxy and oppose heresy and untruth. To deny the Church this authority is just another way deny God, His power to “inspire” men to protect the Faith, and to say “I refuse to believe” these men but I choose to think myself or some other men have greater access to the truth, if you even believe there is Truth. Or to say, there is no Truth in the face of differing opinions. Once you go there, there is no purpose, Truth, or meaning in anything.
This all said, I do think some do have an idolatry view of the Bible beyond what Christ and His Church intended. We are to put our faith in the Triune God which is so much more greater than the Bible itself.
In John (what I think are some of the most beautiful prose ever written), it says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
The Bible is a significant Revelation (perfect and inerrant) of God to us but it isn’t His total revelation nor is it God Himself in His Fullness. He reveals part of Himself in His Creation and His whispering into our conscience as well. But, just as Moses in the bush and Christ in the Transfiguration seen through a veil, we are incapable to gaze or grasp the fullness of God until we are in Heaven.
The significance of the Bible isn’t found in the paper or ink but in the transmission by the Holy Spirit of His Revelation into our heart so we might come to know, love and serve Him who created us and came to save us.
P.S. Dawkins is on my reading list but never seem to get to him. I will though.
Troy, again, we seem to have different information on the history of the Gospels. It is my understanding that Mark is the oldest of the Gospels and that the others (with the exception of John) used Mark as a source plus two other sources not currently included in the Canon, one of which additionally informed the later Gospel of Matthew and the other, Luke.
ReplyDeleteMark's Gospel is thought to have been written c. 70 AD. John's much later, 90-100 AD. There are some who argue that this Gospel reads the way it does, deifying Jesus and postponing the apocalypse because by then it was apparent that the "end times" were not going to be immediately forthcoming as the other three synoptic Gospels suggest.
I have an open mind about all this, of course, not having been around in those days to check any of it out first hand. ;^)
Cory, my previous statements weren't pearls, but the Truth within them was, and I think you know that Truth did not originate with me. I realize you are very caught up in your own little world, but don't assume that we all are.
ReplyDeleteIn this day and age of compromise and dereliction of duty by so many so-called "pastors," that distinction means little to nothing--certainly so when the pastor teaches in contradiction to Scripture.
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. - 2 Timothy 4:3
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. - Matthew 7:15
I'm willing to cut someone some slack if they are ignorant (I was ignorant once, as I mentioned), but I would expect a pastor to know the Bible and Christian doctrine better.
Bill, my logic is certainly no more circular than your evolutionist logic which claims it is true because people who ostensibly study science say so, and besides, can't you see that fossil--that proves it's right. Or the circular logic that assumes a particular fossil is x million years old because it was found in a geological layer we assume is x million years old...and if other evidence doesn't agree, we just throw it out or rewrite what was "fact" yesterday.
Real smart. Again, you reveal you aren't worth wasting any significant time on. You could have your nose shoved into truth up to your eyeballs and still you'd claim it didn't exist. I only provide information for people with open minds, though I know that's a rarity in Madville.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI don't claim to be a Biblical Scholar so what you say may be totally true with regard to corroboration and the dates. I just don't know.
But, it doesn't surprise me that Mathew for instance would corroborate what he wrote to confirm certain facts or consult actual witnesses to events he may not have been present for.
I don't think anybody claims that God said "Sit down and dictate what I'm about to tell you."
God has chosen to involve His creation in salvation as cooperators. It is both humbling and empowering for me to contemplate. What love He has for us!
Love you man. :)
Another cut and paste grenade from the sergeant-at-arms.
ReplyDeleteI agree, at least Sibby has some prescient creative firepower behind his aphroistic tirades.
aphoristic.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Troy. Same here. Always a pleasure. Namaste.
ReplyDeleteWhat? This ain't the Kucinich's. You two can't just cop modus vivendi and walk away friends!
ReplyDeleteGuys...?
Bob, your inner child is getting the best of you. Deep breaths, big fella, deep breaths.
ReplyDeleteThere are the arguments that come with evidence and those that don't. Yours are of the latter variety, science's are of the former.
Even so, scientific conclusions are subject to revision given better evidence due to improvements in the data or the technology used to examine it.
Never once have these improvements mooved the needle of understanding in the direction of your hypothesis, but rather further and further away from it.
That said, feel free to spend your time any way you please. However, it's worthy of note that this is about the 8th or 9th time you have stipulated that you were not going to waste any more of your precious time with me.
Not that I care, but I'm beginning to think that either your memory is failing you, that you are simply posturing, or that you are in fact untrue to your word, even when you promise it to yourself.
Larry, I told you man, Troy and are are buds. Get used to it, bro.
ReplyDeleteBtw, Bob. If your service record and retirement orders are public record, how about posting them for us. Your choice of site.
ReplyDeletePrint and frame Bill and Troy's conversation as exactly the kind of civil conversation I'm thrilled to see. Respectful disagreement on important matters, and neither one had to impugn the other's patriotism or intellect or darn the other to heck.
ReplyDeleteLarry,
ReplyDeleteHilarious! Bill and I have acknowledged to each other our own brokenness are impediments to finding Truth. But we respect our mutual desire to find it.
Sometimes we have to step back in respect and try to find what makes sense in another.
From my perspective of course, I usually find I wish he'd admit I'm right more often. :)
Troy, actually, I do, just not to your face often enough, I suppose. (He creams me any time it's about numbers.)
ReplyDeleteBill,
ReplyDeleteI'm in the office because my wife is gone and I have work to do but I am as always drawn into my discussions with you.
But always remember, the only real affect I want to have on you is that most important offline conversation we have way too seldom. Return to your childhood and come home, brother.
P.S. Cory, how can two slugs denigrate each other. We both have to look in the mirror.
Bill, you can come on by Dakota Voice when I'm on the topic anytime you're in the mood to learn something. But you've made it abundantly clear repeatedly that you aren't interested in the truth at all, so I definitely won't go out of my way to waste my time on stuffed ears. And no, I'm not wasting any significant time on you; were I to expend any real effort to provide you with information, it would be far more than would fit in this comment section. But you continue to attempt to mislead people, and I continue to expose your deceptions. I can do that without breaking a sweat.
ReplyDeleteAnd Larry, my life is none of your business beyond what I choose to share in my own good time. The last I checked, you socialists still hadn't managed to take away that freedom, and God willing, you won't.
Wow - I came to this party late, but since I introduced Bill and Troy (in a cyber sense - they have never met in real life), I can't resist a couple of insignificant observations.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Coreyburg, you need more and better friends - so you can inspire this higher level of discussion more often. I enjoy the opportunity to think while I am reading - and this certainly provided that opportunity.
Second, Dr Peterson from my Reason Faith and Search for Meaning class at Augie addressed evolution when we discussed the seven reasons for the existence of God. He was as quiet and careful of an old Norwegian scholar as you could want to meet - no likely target for attacks of right wing extremism, and he posited the question that apparently has plagued the science-only minded folks in debates through the decades. If it all started with the splitting of an amoeba --- who created the first amoeba ?
--Lee Schoenbeck
Namaste, Bob.
ReplyDeleteHi Lee,
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's always fun to compare notes with Mr. Jones. Thanks for the introduction!
A couple of notes on your "first cause" question.
The assumption that every event has a cause, while certainly intuitive, is not necessarily universal. Take radioactive decay for example.
Thinking in terms of the cosmos, if time began at the "big bang" then the concept that there was a "time before time" is logically impossible.
Finally, if the degree of design perfection indicates the act of a creator then it begs the question: who created the creator?
In other words, if God doesn't need a cause, neither does the universe. Evolution is what happens after that.
Or, to put it more simply, I suppose, you could just say "sh*t happens."
See you soon, mon. Take good care.
Bill -
ReplyDeleteThe belief tha there is a supreme power that has always existed, reconcilles the issue of does there need to be a cause for God. In the Big Bang theory, who caused the first bang? (that theory is intuitivly kind of goofy to a mere mortal mind like mine - that one good bang got it rolling)
Time to take my youngest out golfing FLemdog - have a good one (have a God one too :))
--Lee Schoenbeck
On first causes: consider quantum fluctuations. According to quantum theory (not "just a theory"), when you "look" at an electron, there's are varying probabilities that it occupies certain positions. Lee, when you swing at that golf ball, there is a small chance that the golf ball will actually disappear from the tee and reappear in your pocket, or on the moon. (Actually, probably more likely that the particles would all appear in a dispersed cloud than that they would all "agree" and reconstitute themselves in full golf-balldom elsewhere.)
ReplyDeleteWhen you look at empty space, there is actually a small probability that a pair of virtual particles may pop into existence right there. Usually those virtual particles foaming up quite literaly ex nihilo come in matter-antimatter pairs and cancel each other out. But if a virtual pair winks into existence at the event horizon of a black hole, one particle may get sucked into the black hole while its partner spins off into the regular cosmos.
Now, as I play with just enough knowledge of such things to be dangerous, I suggest that if there is a small probability that one small particle may come into existence from nothing, there is a much smaller yet nonzero probability that a whole bunch of particles may come into existence from nothing.
And here we are, fellow particles.
Cory, check out "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene. Talk about popping in out of nowhere! Greene shows us that in all probability, there is no "nothing" or "nowhere." Awesome read, but hard (for me.) I felt like I should probably turn it around and read it again right away just to let all the info there sink in. But to date, only one run through. What a ride though.
ReplyDeletep.s. Cory, great link. Very true that the semantics are (as usual) a big part of the problem here. "Just a theory" is probably the first argument that has to go.
ReplyDeleteTo illustrate, Einstein's theories have invalidated all of Newton's laws. And Einstein is right. If we just went by Newton's laws, the GPS systems we use to track ourselves on the planet wouldn't work. One has to make corrections to Newton's gravity laws by using Einstein's two theories. One correction for gravity and the other for distance. Theories are the highest "truths" in science. An "unproven" theory is a hypothesis. Laws explain "what" theories, "how."
A student of mine did a report on that book (or maybe a similar text by Green)—really blew his mind!
ReplyDeleteThe basic structure of reality defies the common sense we form in our macro-scale, low-velocity, billiard ball existence. In a way, we are too big to dig atoms, too small and fleeting to dig evolution.
"Thinking in terms of the cosmos, if time began at the "big bang" then the concept that there was a "time before time" is logically impossible."
ReplyDeleteNot true Bill, the interpretation of time only stops at the Big Bang because there is literally nothing to measure time or space by, since such things are relative. That is not the same thing as time or space being non-existent. There is absolutely nothing inherantly wrong with the possibility of more than a single Big Bang. If a 2nd one mirrored our own and occurred further away than the distance it's light could travel to where we are now, we would never know. Yet such an event happening prior to our big bang would "generate" time and space before time and space existed according to out current scientific convention.
I believe there is a similar misunderstanding of Einsteins description of the relativity of time. The length of time doesn't change. The effects of time change.
For the purposes of science there isn't much of a distinction between the two. But people playing with the concepts of time and space is like the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard to me.
Lee, before the big bang, there were probably no "Whos" in "Whoville." Conversely, if a Who designed the Cosmos, Who designed the Who?
ReplyDeleteThe best either side can come up with in this dualist line of reasoning is a Mexican standoff. To be sure, though, science has kicked the can pretty far down the road. All the way back to the beginning of time.
There is a way out, of course, but it's not what most people think as yet. Not the "conventional wisdom," so to speak.
Roger, those parallel universes would be different times and spaces. Einstein demonstrates that space and time are not to be thought of as separate, but rather as one coherent fabric. It's all just one big "here/now." (...well okay, maybe not "just"...)
ReplyDelete"who created the first amoeba ?"
ReplyDeleteMore importantly to me is the question: Why, at some point, did an amoeba and a paramecium decide to team up rather than compete for resources...or eat each other.
Intelligent design is too often used as a more reasonable excuse to get creationism's foot in the door of science classes. I believe in intelligent design. But recognize that it has no scientific basis at all. 10,000 monkeys can eventually write Hamlet, however I doubt that such an event would be regarded as coincidence. To me, evolution worked to create our world. It required no intervention. It only required that probability and coincidence followed a specific path. Scientificly, It could have happened by chance. The fact that it did has meaning, and that is faith.
Bill: Yes, one big time and space that existed prior to there being any way of measuring it. The Bang of all matter and light to populate that space and time created a way to measure time and space. It did not create time and space itself.
ReplyDeletep.s. Also, Roger, time is measured relative to the speed of light. You can do Einstein's initial thought experiment pretty easily and get it. It's not hard. If you're moving at the speed of light, time has stopped as far as you're concerned.
ReplyDeleteWe can run through the experiment if you're of a mind.
Are you talking about "the void" Roger? Nothingness?
ReplyDeleteHere's a different thought experiment for you Roger. It takes about 8 minutes for the sun's light to reach us here on Earth. If somehow the sun were to disappear instantly, how long would it take us to go flying off into space, no longer held in orbit by gravity?
ReplyDeleteWould we actually fly off BEFORE we could see that the sun went out?
If nothing is impossible, how can infinity be one thing?
ReplyDeleteLarry, Georg Cantor might tell you infinity isn't one thing (aleph-null, aleph-one...).
ReplyDeleteGive me an infinite universe, and I'll show you a place where anything that can happen eventually does... even extremely unlikely things like us.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCory, in an infinite universe it will happen not just once, but rather, an infinite number of times. That's the problem with infinities... they're just so... infinite.
ReplyDeleteProbably why physicists and mathematicians take such care to get rid of them in their "real world" problem solving.
Throw in one infinity, and there goes the neighborhood. ;^)
Ergo, an infinite God cannot exist mathematically except as metaphor; as Joseph Campbell would probably describe.
ReplyDeleteDeja vu, fellers...
Oh, they exist mathematically alright. In fact, my favorite number, a perfect harmony, is an infinity, Larry. And it has some astonishing properties. Some say "divine." But that's a whole other kettle of fish.
ReplyDeleteFor a great read see "Is God a Mathematician?" by Mario Livio.
Also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
Gods or infinities, Bill?
ReplyDeleteRoger, Progressives do not equal Borg. Script-writer, Michael Okuda had the film classic, "Metropolis," an indictment of American Capitalism, in mind when he created the Borg.
Larry, the book cite is a discussion of the "God" part, Larry. Several times it brushes up against the notion that God IS mathematics. Check it out.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mariolivio.com/
This of course compliments Troy's excitement over the Gospel of John wherein the author states "In the beginning was the word..." Especially if you use the Greek technical, philosophical meaning for the Greek word "Logos" which you probably should, since the gospel was written in Greek, and "Logos" is, in fact the word that was used.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
Larry: Okuda-Borg-capialism?! Wow! The Borg are at least a better critique than the Ferengi.
ReplyDeleteMore Larry: many infinities mean no God? I didn't see that one coming! Of course, where there are א-null and א-one, He could be aleph-omega...
...none of which dislodges the excellent thinking of Pastor Shel and the oppressed Dr. Waltke.
Read a bit about Dr. Waltke from his colleague Dr. Stackhouse at Regent College....
ReplyDeleteLarry: If Michael Okuda had the film classic, "Metropolis," an indictment of American Capitalism in mind when he created the Borg, he failed miserably. I would admit the movie is an indictment in the typical socialistic mode. Produced in Germany during a stable period of the Weimar Republic prior to the rise of Fascism, I am not surprised that the synopsis reads like a communist fairy tale. However I don't see how it relates to what the Borg were: a hive mind devoted to the good of the Borg at the expense of all vestiges of individual thought or freedom striving to eradicate that individualism in every other being it found it in.
ReplyDeleteTrue belief in freedom requires a rejection of the superiority of the common good. Real freedom means allowing creationists to teach their children their flawed "science" regardless of the truth of evolution.
Roger, no it doesn't. There is nothing liberated about forcing science teachers to teach bad science in science class.
ReplyDeleteBill's right. Allusion is in the eye of the artist.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion seems to be asking some bigger hammer permission to be human. Why does free will have to include reasons to gather food and reproduce (not necessarily in that order)?
Humans have evolved this heirarchy of needs to luxuriate many little councils not unlike this one to debate the critical cooperation to phone home, stardust that we are.
What does God have to do with why we go exploring 'cause it ain't to convert the natives and pay the Pope for the right to go to Heaven?
Here's a great episode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-jfdkZIE20
Roger,
ReplyDeleteIntelligent Design does have a place in science class as a theory. It is the order of the universe that led Einstien to embrace a transcendent "Uncaused First Cause."
Proper Science would posit there are two options:
1) Everything is an accident and discuss the likelihood all this order could happen from a cataclysmic single event like the Big Bang.
2) Alternatively to the accident, the order was put in place by a transcendent intelligent designer.
Because we can't "prove" either scenario to everyone's satisfaction, we have the alternatives posited and then we can move onto discovering the science ahead of us provided by accident or intelligent design.
Right now we have one premise taught: It is all an accident.
As appealing as that might be to some, it has one big problem- it requires the statistically unlikely thing to have have occurred.
We'd all be wise to remember Occam's Razor- "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."
I disagree on a couple of points, Troy. I don't think we teach that it's an accident. I remember my HS biology teacher (who obviously contributed to brainwashing the terrible liberal secular humanist you see before you!) taking pains to see he was not saying that life was created either by accident or by design. He said he was simply describing how cells develop. We can teach science while remaining agnostic on the more philosophical question of first cause. That's a good thing, because Intelligent Design is not a scientific question. We can't pursue it with evidence or experiment the way we can the usual matter of our science classes.
ReplyDeleteNow I do mostly agree that the statistical probability of life (and our whole cosmos) forming by chance is small. However, we don't consider falling toward the ground a matter of chance; it is governed by gravity. Perhaps the formation of organic material is also governed by a mathematizable formula that we simply haven't discovered yet. Maybe life isn't chance; it's a natural outcome of a universe. (Again, probably mre philosophy than science, since we haven't found other universes to compare and experiment with.)
But suppose you could show me a solid number on the statistical unlikelihood of spontaneous abiogenesis. What is the statistical likelihood of a Supreme Being deciding to build people out of dust? If statistical probability is to be the measuring stick by which we accept or reject a theory for the origin of life, then we must apply that measuring stick to all alternatives.
And watch where you're swinging Occam's Razor: aren't Intelligent Design proponents the ones increasing the number of entities required to explain our existence?
I just know Troy will enjoy reading Dawkins's "The Greatest Show on Earth" and Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Almost Everything." Layman's level stuff, one doesn't have to be a science genius to get it.
ReplyDeleteSuffice it to say for now that the miracles we see today as hard science are far more astonishing and philosophically confounding than the simplistic ones Western and Mediterranean religious thinkers came up with two, or three, or four thousand years ago.
And regarding Occham's Razor, we should perhaps look to the "Anthropic Principle." The universe we see is the way it is because it is the only possible universe that has US in it.
The ID position of course also begs the question of "who created the creator?" and as such doesn't rally answer any questions, but rather just kicks the can down the road.
ReplyDeleteI do love the story of the universe being on the back of a turtle though. Especially the answer to the question 'but what's the turtle standing on?' which is: "After that, it's just turtles, all the way down."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
Good comments guys.
ReplyDeleteCory: There are few times where in H.S. it is "required" to discuss whether life and the order of the universe is an accident or by design but it is inherent for the question to come up in a good learning environment.
Currently, the political environment has gotten so polarizing, a teacher is currently restricted to respond with one possibility (accident) while the other is off-limits because of the misguided application of the principle of "separation of Church and State."
I just think we have to be more open to allow this discussion to take place in our schools and I can assure you the atheist position will well presented. I just want the opportunity for a more complete and fair discussion.
Regarding Occam's Razor, the most simple explanation is an Intelligent Designer. Even non-believing scientist's concede this. They oppose it because of its simplicity.
Bill, three comments.
1) I have read Bryson's book. Great book. I think it should be on everyone's list who likes talking about a breadth of issues.
2) The Antropic Principle is a good one to comtemplate because it speaks again to the order of the universe and in my mind points to an Intelligent Designer. Funny, how two people with differing views can see the samething differently. :)
3) Let's just concede there is an Intelligent Designer. :) Then, all we have to discuss is if the Intelligent Designer is Einstein's Uncaused First Cause or not.
Troy, there's nothing necessarily incompatible with that view and good science, as most — if not all — scientists will admit. Just as long as we keep it in the right classroom (i.e. metaphysics, philosophy, theology, logic, ethics, etc.)
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, the Anthropic principle leads to all sorts of interesting philosophical and theological speculations.