Can we have any true knowledge in a world where we developed by chance?
The concept of creation or design is the crucial assumption that believers of the nineteenth century overlooked when they thought the sciences could proceed without any distinctively Christian presuppositions. Apart from the doctrine of creation or design, there is no basis for trusting that the ideas in my mind have any correlation to the world outside. If the human mind is a product of chance events, preserved by natural selection, then there is no basis for trusting any of our ideas. Recall Darwin's “horrid doubt” that the human mind could be trusted at all, if it is a product of evolution. The non-Christian pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on his senses, just as everyone else does; but he has no philosophical basis for doing so. He is being inconsistent with his own worldview. (Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth, p. 315)
Though scientists may have a hard time accepting this (since their work and authority depend on their being able to perceive reality), many others who recognize the implications of Darwinism (and don't have their livelihood threatened by the outcome) have already proceeded willingly down this path from naturalistic Darwinism, accepting the postmodern view that we do not have access to reality. Therefore, the most important consideration for these people when choosing their beliefs is not truth itself (since “truth” is in the eye of the beholder), but rather, they are concerned primarily with how the beliefs in question may affect others–insult, empower, alienate, etc.
Many Christians also accept this perspective (or a form of this that goes beyond an appropriate acknowledgment of human fallibility), not realizing that the view is a direct result of naturalistic thinking. But our grounds, as Christians, for believing that we have the ability to perceive reality and can have reasonably confident ideas about the truth (even if that confidence can never be absolute) are these: Our senses did not develop by random chance such that we can never know if they perceive reality; God designed us to interact successfully with the world. Pearcey describes this using a phrase from Udo Middelmann: “Because God created us in His image, to function in His world, there is a 'continuity of categories' between God's mind, our minds, and the structure of the world.”
This kind of confidence in the possibility of knowledge can only be grounded in a theistic framework.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Philosophy, Science 
No Comments »
“[Fellow seminary student] Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said: 'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God….'
“I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before.
“'How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed.
“'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said.
“'What book is that?' I enquired.
“'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me.”
–E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (quoted in Total Truth)
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Philosophy, Religion (General), Science 12 Comments »
Brace yourselves, Disneyland “Pirates” fans.
Now, I love the “Pirates” movie, and its references to the classic ride made me chuckle, but the movie ought never to have turned around to recreate its creator. God created man, my friends, and when man turned that around, there was nothing but trouble. Trouble, I tell you.
In the most outrageous move since the Food Tray Incident of 1997, according to this L.A. Times article, “The ride’s story line has been tweaked.”
Tweaked? They call this tweaked?!
Instead of pirates ransacking a Spanish seaport town in search of gold, they’re now trying to capture Jack Sparrow and beat him to the treasure. The booty, incidentally, has a lot more bling, Disney said.
Fans of the movie will see familiar elements, including animatronic characters depicting Jack Sparrow and Capt. Barbossa. In the ride’s cannon scene, in which a pirate ship appears to shoot cannonballs over the riders’ heads, music from the movie will be playing. Special effects also have been upgraded to make the cannon blasts more realistic.
A waterfall scene has been added with the ghostly image of Davy Jones, the evil spirit of the seas and a character in the second movie, Rogers said. In the ride’s town and treasure scenes, Jack Sparrow has been dropped into the mix.
So, welcome, Capt. Jack. Join your friends “Fed-Ex Space Mountain” and “Energizer Bunny Star Tours.”
All that those anonymous, poverty-stricken, non-celebrity pirates ever asked for was the redhead. Is this any way to treat them? Let’s honor them, readers, with the truth. Never forget the true story of the “Pirates” ride–the one without Jack, the one without the food trays. Tell it to your children when they tie their shoes, and when they blow their noses, and when they buy their little Capt. Jack action figures. The truth will live on.
And you, Jack…couldn’t you at least have brought Will?
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Miscellaneous 6 Comments »
Why didn't this ever occur to me? What an excellent idea!
I am disposed to say grace upon twenty other occasions in the course of the day besides my dinner. I want a form for setting out upon a pleasant walk, for a moonlight ramble, for a friendly meeting or a solved problem. Why have we none for books, those spiritual repasts–a grace before Milton, a devotional exercise proper to be said before reading [Spenser]?
–Charles Lamb (1775-1834)
[HT: Christian Quotation of the Day]
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Miscellaneous 3 Comments »
I thought it would be helpful to define the main idea behind ID theory. Nancy Pearcey explains it simply and clearly:
Critics say the concept of design does not belong in science. They argue that it is a “science-stopper” that puts an end to scientific investigation. The head of an evolution advocacy group recently told CNN that design theory is “not a very good science, because it's basically giving up and saying: We can't explain this; therefore, God did it.”
But that accusation is based on a misunderstanding. The process of detecting design is thoroughly empirical. In fact, it is already an important element in several areas of science….
Today astronomers involved in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) have worked out extensive criteria for recognizing when a radio signal is an encoded message and when it is just a natural phenomenon, like a pulsar. In other words, they have developed criteria for distinguishing between products of design and products of natural causes.
The same distinction is made in several other fields: Detectives are trained to distinguish murder (design) from death by natural causes. Archeologists have criteria for distinguishing when a stone has the distinctive chip marks of a primitive tool (design), and when its shape is simply the result of weathering and erosion. Insurance companies….Cryptologists….[etc.]
It should be possible to formalize the thinking process used in all these examples, which is exactly what design theory does. Its central tenet is that the characteristic marks of design can be empirically detected. As the title of one book puts it, in nature we can uncover Signs of Intelligence. [Total Truth, pp. 181-182, highlighted emphasis mine]
In other words, ID scientists aren't just postulating a God to explain what they can't understand; it's not merely an ad hoc explanation. Intelligent design is the best explanation for the scientific facts based on our knowledge of the natural world and intelligent agents.
Scientists who believe in naturalism understandably don't want to “give up” on finding an explanation that fits their philosophy. However, we ought to recognize that when they say ID means “giving up” on finding answers, they're really just asserting that the true answer will be found within a naturalistic framework–but that is the very thing in question and cannot merely be asserted. Isn't it possible that their commitment to not “give up”–which they consider noble–is actually foolish, and that their dogmatic refusal to consider ID only means they'll be searching forever for a naturalistic answer that doesn't exist?
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Philosophy, Science 37 Comments »
Ought we to dismiss the work of apologists simply because they’re defending their particular worldviews? In an interesting discussion that ensued in the comments for my recent post on apologists, a reader made this charge:
Whereas the rationally-minded individual arrives at a tentative conclusion through argument and logic, the apologist already knows the conclusion, and his task is to fashion argument in support of it. As you can probably discern, the apologist is not held in very high regard outside the theology or belief he defends, and his work is regarded warily.
The problem with this statement about apologists is that it applies to everybody–especially scientists. How does any scientist–naturalist or theist–decide how to direct his research? He looks where he thinks discoveries are most likely to be found based on his view of the nature of the universe. He knows the ultimate conclusion (naturalism or theism), and in his effort to reveal truth, he looks for facts that fit in with the overall truth he believes actually exists. Does this automatically invalidate his findings? What if his findings are true? Shouldn’t the results be judged on their own merit rather than on the philosophical motivations of their finder?
I’m currently reading Nancy Pearcey’s book, Total Truth, and tonight I came across a passage that perfectly illustrates the idea that scientist apologists for naturalism work in the same way as any apologist:
The famous duo who discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, Francis Crick and James Watson, freely admit that anti-religious motivations drove their scientific work. “I went into science because of these religious reasons, there’s no doubt about that,” Crick said in a recent interview. “I asked myself what were the two things that appear inexplicable and are used to support religious beliefs.” He decided the two things that support religion were “the difference between living and nonliving things, and the phenomenon of consciousness.” He then aimed his own research specifically at demonstrating a naturalistic view of both. [The original quote by Crick can be found here.]
But isn’t an adherence to naturalistic evolution different from an adherence to a religion? Not according to philosopher of science (and evolutionist) Michael Ruse who, when confronted with the charge that evolution functions as a religion, finally admitted [from Total Truth] “that evolution really is ‘more than mere science….Evolution came into being as a kind of secular ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.'” [See more on this here.] As such, its followers seek to support it through their work.
So if it’s the case that naturalistic scientists are defending their view and theistic scientists are defending their view, what good would it do us to dismiss all of their work? Instead, we ought to recognize that no human being is neutral–we are all driven by philosophical presuppositions, and it’s likely that claims on all sides will be exaggerated at times. Our job is to examine and evaluate the evidence itself, following where it leads (even if away from our current worldview) regardless of who brought it to light.
This approach, rather than the other, will keep us on the path of truth.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Philosophy, Religion (General), Science 7 Comments »
June 11, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton
closeAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
For a number of years now I’ve spent most of my Sunday
devotions in Isaiah 6 and Revelation 4 so I would refocus each week on God’s
holiness. One might think after several years that I might have plumbed the
depths of these passages, but this morning I saw something fresh.
In Isaiah, the prophet is before the throne of God while the
creatures around the throne proclaim “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
the whole earth is full of his glory!” In Revelation, John is before the throne
while the creatures around it proclaim “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God
Almighty, who was and is and is to come!” For some reason it never occurred to
me to ask why they are saying something different.
I think there’s a point being made here. God spoke in the
Hebrew Bible through many prophets. The people of those times saw many
miraculous works. But for several centuries God was in this sense silent. Many
questioned whether God was still with them; perhaps He’d left completely on
account of their unfaithfulness. John tells us that the God who raised Jesus
from the dead is the same God who brought His people out of Egypt, who put them
to exile and brought them back. The God who was is the same God today, and He
will still be the same God in the next age.
This speaks not only of God’s uniformity, but also of
His immutability and faithfulness. Over all the ages He is a God who does not
change. He is forever holy above all things. In every age He is faithful to His
word and faithful to His precepts. This same God who called the Israelites, who
sacrificed His Son for the many, is the same God today who is faithful in our
lives to bring about blessing and hope for the age to come when He will be
faithful still.
Posted in Main Page, Poetry/Scripture/Liturgy/Etc., Roger's Posts No Comments »
June 11, 2006 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Those in the
Southern California area may want to know about a lecture series that
begins tomorrow (Sunday) in Huntington Beach from 6-8pm. The best part
about it is the great speakers, but second best is that it's free! The
first three will be at Calvary Baptist Church and the last three at EV
Free Church. Here's the line-up:
June 11th- Greg Koukl “Truth is a Strange Sort of Fiction” (a great lecture on the emerging church)
June 25th- Joe Francis “Creation Microbiology and the Problem of Natural Evil”
June 28th- Jay Wesley Richards “The Death of Materialism” (another great lecture!)
July 9th- Alan Shlemon “A Closer Look at Islam” (I'm most looking forward to this)
July 16th- Larry Pettegrew “Openness Theology”
July 23rd- William Varner “Was Jesus a Feminist?”
Get more details including directions at the Calvary Baptist Church website.
And, since I've got your attention… You will want to register soon for the upcoming God Blog Con 2006
at Biola University August 3-5. Last year was a blast, you will not
want to miss this year's. If you are a Christian blogger, especially a
local one, there's no reason not to be there.
Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts No Comments »
From Francis Schaeffer's The God Who is There:
We must look to the Son of God, moment by moment, for these things; such things cannot be done in our own strength. We must allow Him to bear His fruit through us….Our calling…is to exhibit God and His character, by His grace, in this generation….It is possible in the flesh to be both orthodox and dead–or loving and compromising. What is not possible in the flesh is simultaneously to exhibit both the justice of God and the love of God–this can only be done through the work of the Holy Spirit. And yet anything less is not a picture of God, but only a caricature of the God who exists.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Religion (General) 8 Comments »
A Christian friend emailed me recently with a challenge to Christianity that was troubling her. I gladly answered her question (I think everyone ought to confront their doubts head-on!), and she thanked me and responded:
“I think I thought I could avoid apologetics, and just tuck away these types of questions that creep into my mind and assume that someone out there has an answer for them. Yes, I am still someone who cringes when I hear some apologists speak, because I think that somehow the 'love the Lord your God with all your mind' is crowding out the heart and soul parts.”
This is a very common objection to apologetics–the fear that apologetics will somehow stifle your love for God, but I think it reflects a misunderstanding of people and God's gifts in general.
I know a lot of apologists. I have one apologist friend who demanded I debate his reasons against my not liking Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, and I know other ones like Gary Habermas who move me to tears with their emotional words about God. What I've discovered is that this all has to do with innate personality. People are worried that if they study apologetics they'll end up like [fill in the blank], when in reality, it just isn't going to change your personality. Instead, the information will be filtered through your own personality and used for everyone's benefit in your unique way.
In the case of apologetics, you see a lot of one type of personality (logical, reasoning, persuasive) because those are the gifts that make a person good at apologetics. In other words, it's not the using of apologetics that makes a person have an emphasis on logic and analysis, it's the person who already has an emphasis on logic and analysis who is good at apologetics.
Because of their special gifts and the corresponding personality traits, apologists generally have to be more deliberate about developing and communicating the “heart” part of loving God (if by “heart” you mean artistic, emotional, right-brained approaches). But, trust me, they're passionate about God; they just express it in a different way–the way God created them to express it for the good of all.
Different hearts are drawn to different aspects of God's character. I know that my heart rejoices when it meditates on apologetics, and I'm often moved to worship as I'm studying. To those who have a very different gift–perhaps of mercy–this might sound unbelievable. They know only the joy of their own gift and think deep down that their service, since they're blessed so incredibly through it, must be the true way of communing with God.
In the same way, I think apologists often forget that not everyone “feels God's pleasure” just by talking about apologetics, so they don't think to mention the fulfillment and closeness to God it brings for them. They just assume everyone is experiencing it! But those who are not experiencing it don't realize it's present at all and leave thinking no heart is involved.
We make the mistake sometimes of thinking everyone will be as fulfilled by our specific gifts as we are, forgetting that we're created for different purposes. I see so much of people trying to get others to join them in their particular “most important” gift, but what we really need is to realize that all the gifts are valid and to rejoice in the diversity that makes up the whole, healthy Body, understanding that each person is most blessed by fulfilling his own gifts. Let's appreciate each other, men and women, and smile and thank God whenever we're bemused by someone enjoying God in ways we can't understand, in areas in which we don't have the least bit of interest. Thank God there's someone to take care of each kind of thing–and find joy in it! You need not fear that benefiting from another's gift will cause you to enjoy your own less.
So make use of your local apologists–God has raised them up to help you just as He raised you up in your gifts to help them.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page 20 Comments »
content rss
Recent Comments