Today we think about an event that was not only the result of evil, but also the reason for allowing evil to exist in the first place. That event is the revealing of the perfection and beauty of God’s grace and righteousness through the demonstration of both on the cross:
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:23-26).
Why did God allow evil to come into this world? Why not create everything in the state of perfection we will be in after this world comes to an end? I think the answer is that God had a goal in mind that is greater than the suffering, and that goal is the revealing of Himself to His people so that we will be able to fully express our pleasure in Him through worship, enjoying Him for an eternity.
In other words, we experience suffering and sin so that Jesus could die on the cross for us.
That might sound backward to you. But if God’s greatest goal is to reveal His perfections to us (a greater goal than our temporary comfort on this Earth), then in order for us to know God’s grace, His mercy, His power, His justice, His righteousness, His love, and our need for Him, He allowed sin into this world so that we could see and experience Him in these ways. And the pinnacle of this demonstration of Himself happened at the cross.
Evil isn’t necessary for God’s goodness to exist, but it is necessary for God’s goodness to be revealed to us. I always think of the heroes of United 93 as an illustration of this. Before 9/11, the people who would soon give their lives on that flight went about their daily business doing ordinary things. They had already developed the character, invisible to us, that would direct their actions on that tragic day, but the depth of their self-sacrificing courage wasn’t made visible to us until evil led to the expression of it.
In the same way, God was God before sin was in the world. He was always full of grace, but without our sin, would we have known it? He was always just, but without judgment, would we have seen it? Would we have ever seen a love that seeks out enemies if there had been no enemies? Our knowledge and appreciation of God would have been forever stunted in a world without the cross.
In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved (Ephesians 1:5-6).
(Cross-posted at Stand to Reason)
April 22nd, 2011 | 6:58 pm | #1
Thank you. That makes so much sense to me.
April 22nd, 2011 | 10:00 pm | #2
“Evil isn’t necessary for God’s goodness to exist, but it is necessary for God’s goodness to be revealed to us.”
This doesn’t sound right to me. What do the rest of you think?
April 22nd, 2011 | 10:33 pm | #3
Craig, sort of yes and sort of no.
Evil would not be necessary for us to comprehend God’s goodness if we were not in a fallen world.
But since we’re in a fallen world, I’m at least open to the idea that the contrast is necessary to our fallen minds — though I could be persuaded otherwise fairly easily, I think.
April 23rd, 2011 | 3:43 am | #4
Anyone else not comfortable with the definition of evil as a privation?
April 23rd, 2011 | 3:44 am | #5
I agree with Craig Payne. Why would evil be “necessary”, for God’s goodness to be revealed? This claim, seem to indicate that, God, being all powerful, knowledgable, and good, had no choice but to allow evil to exist, in order for His goodness to be revealed.
The simple truth is, I believe, humans are cognitively incapable, of grasping why evil exists. It exists, it’s horrible, and we must obviously do all we can, to reduce or eliminate it.
What concerns me, with this claim (I do NOT believe that Amy K. Hall intends this) is it could incline one to moral complacency. why fight something that’s necessary to show God’s goodness?
April 23rd, 2011 | 3:46 am | #6
Nikolai: Augustine, argued that, evil has no ontological existence, but is the absence of good. This does seem problematic: many of the most horrible of things, can’t be adequately explained, as mere “absences of good”.
April 23rd, 2011 | 8:26 am | #7
Amy K. Hall:
In the same way, God was God before sin was in the world. He was always full of grace, but without our sin, would we have known it?
So sin was a good thing, for without it we would not have known God’s grace?
April 23rd, 2011 | 8:51 am | #8
Bret Lythgoe:
The simple truth is, I believe, humans are cognitively incapable, of grasping why evil exists.
I think all we have to do is read the Holy Scripture, Gen. 3, perhaps? When one doesn’t believe that Adam and Eve were real historical people, (our first parents), and that there was a real historical space-time Fall, then I can see why one might come to that conclusion.
April 23rd, 2011 | 11:56 am | #9
Did the dinosaurs wiped out by the asteroid 100 millions BP think of it as “evil”? When an alpha bear loses a fight with a younger rival and retires to the forest to die, does it perceive it as “evil”?
“Evil” exists only because humans are self-conscious and can perceive it. The Fall is the Fall into self-consciousness–felix culpa, the fall that makes us aware of shame, suffering and sin, but is also the condition of the possibility of redemption.
That is why Walt Whitman can long to be like an animal:
“They do not sweat and whine about their condition.
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins.”
Of course, if Whitman was like an animal, neither could he know that he was not “sweat[ing] and “whin[ing],” so his desire is of no avail.
In that sense, evil is truly nothing, since it only exists in a state of perception. When one tries to locate the evil–exactly where or in what does it consist–it slips through one’s fingers.
What about that horrible case in Baltimore where a young woman was attacked by two others in a McDonalds? What makes it evil? Epictetus claimed that blows are not evil in and of themselves, but rather because we choose to interpret them as evil. The evil lies in the response, a purely mental-emotional reaction. At the same time, it cannot be said that if I respond to the attack with rage, the evil then lies in me and not the attacker. The reaction like the attack itself, is a bare fact, and is neither good nor evil. Rather it is what the reaction causes the “victim” to be and do, e.g., attack back.
This is why the same identical event can be interpreted as both evil and good (“God used it…”).
April 23rd, 2011 | 12:09 pm | #10
Bret: Why fight something that’s necessary to show God’s goodness? Because the evil is not God’s goodness! The evil doesn’t reveal God’s goodness in itself. Instead, in the fighting, it brings out actions that help us understand goodness and God’s character. It’s not in the existing, but in the conquering that God’s goodness is revealed. Every time we depend on His power to struggle against our own sin, every time He offers us grace and forgiveness, every time He executes judgment, we are seeing who He is. In a world where evil existed but nothing whatsoever was ever done about it, no goodness would be seen.
Steve, I would not go so far as to put it that way. I say only that God decided that creating a world where people would sin was better than skipping straight to a world where no sin would exist. There must be a purpose for that. But sin is utterly evil in itself. More evil than we understand as fallen creatures. So I can only answer as Paul answers a similar challenge:
Evil is condemned by God, but just as Joseph says to his brothers, “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good,” there is a reason God created people whom He knew from the beginning would sin.
April 23rd, 2011 | 12:14 pm | #11
One other point: we know from the concept of “hedonic adaptation” that we get used to a level of pleasure, and thus the pleasure ceases to be pleasurable. So how can it be that the same objective state can be both pleasurable and not pleasurable?
The conclusion is one we have already arrived at: evil is absence, lack, no-longer-being.
April 23rd, 2011 | 2:15 pm | #12
David WL:
Did the dinosaurs wiped out by the asteroid 100 millions BP think of it as “evil”?
What makes you think the dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid 100 million years BP?
“Evil” exists only because humans are self-conscious and can perceive it. The Fall is the Fall into self-consciousness–felix culpa, the fall that makes us aware of shame, suffering and sin, but is also the condition of the possibility of redemption.
Evil exists because the Fall of man into disobedience as recorded in the self-attesting, self-authenticating Word of God actually describes actual history. Have you had a chance to read Genesis 3 yet, or maybe not?
What about that horrible case in Baltimore where a young woman was attacked by two others in a McDonalds? What makes it evil? Epictetus claimed that blows are not evil in and of themselves, but rather because we choose to interpret them as evil.
Short answer: sin. Epictetus as a secularist, at war against God in his actions and intellect, was wrong and obviously speaking from his autonomous presuppositions that had no room for God or for God’s self-attesting, self-authenticating Word. He would have been wise to heed the voice of a certain King of Israel who preceded him: ‘The fear of the ‘Lord’ is the beginning of wisdom’ (Prov. 1:7).
April 23rd, 2011 | 2:23 pm | #13
Amy K. Hall:
Steve, I would not go so far as to put it that way. I say only that God decided that creating a world where people would sin was better than skipping straight to a world where no sin would exist.
Creating a world where people ‘would’ sin, or creating a perfect world from the beginning with a ‘possibility’ of sin? There’s a slight difference, isn’t there?
…there is a reason God created people whom He knew from the beginning would sin.
I think you and I may agree on that reason, Amy, but I’m not sure we agree on the initial conditions of God’s Creation in Genesis 1. Is that a fair assessment?
April 23rd, 2011 | 8:40 pm | #14
I’m comfortable with evil as privation. I think it makes sense that evil has no ontological existence. Lewis calls it spoiled goodness. In any event, it cannot exist on it’s own. It exists only in persons and persons commit it when they turn from God.
I think Amy’s Calvinism is problematic, especially as it necessitates the fall of man. Why didn’t God make us in a perfected state of completion? It’s because such a state is possible only by choice. God cannot make free will beings who obey Him simply by nature.
April 23rd, 2011 | 10:24 pm | #15
Steve: evil is a mystery, whether one believes in the literal existence of Adam and Eve, or not. I just don’t see how, believing in Adam and Eve, and that, the “Fall” took place, in real space/time, makes evil explicable.
For one thing, sadly, there’s a profound amount of radical immorality, or evil, that seems wholly gratuitous. That is, can we really understand why such unspeakable evil, such as child murder, rape, genocide, torture, etc., exists, by concluding that, the first humans, chose to follow their own will, rather than God’s, and this “tendency”, or “trait” (to be sinful), being transmitted to the rest of humanity?
And where did this sinfullness, or selfishness, inother words, ability to be evil, ultimately derive from? Where did Adam and Eve acquire it? From Satan. where did Satan obtain it, from? Is the ability to sin, or choose evil, a necessary byproduct of freedom? And if so, does that mean that, God couldn’t have made us free, without the capacity to do evil?
If the latter is true, then how “free” is God?
The problem of evil’s existence (whether as a real ontological entity, or as an absence of good) is insoluable, to my mind, and I don’t think that, appeals to the Bible, will solve it.
April 23rd, 2011 | 10:48 pm | #16
Amy: if I understand you, correctly, you seem to be saying that, evil, and our overcoming it, is the way to know God, and His character. But if this is so, God set it up this way, meaning that God created, evil, or its capacity, either directly or indirectly, as a means for us to know Him.
Couldn’t God, the all powerful, all knowledgeable, creator of all reality, have found a way, or ways, for us to know him, without using “evil”, and our overcoming of it, as the means?
It also implies that, God is not fully good; if evil comes from Him, either by creating it, or allowing it, He’s not fully good, because evil comes from Him. This cannot possibly be correct.
I don’t want to misread you, Amy, so please correct me, if I’m misinterpreting you here.
April 23rd, 2011 | 11:52 pm | #17
Within the tradition of theology, it’s been generally accepted that, God is all powerful and all knowledgeable. However, it’s been argued, by aquinas, and others that, even God cannot make valid logical conclusions false; He cannot invalidate the principle of noncontradiction. Could it be that, even God, could not create a universe where, humans are free, and yet, not capable of being evil?
But are any of these restrictions, really congruent with the notion of God’s essential omnipotence, and omniscience? Does this mean that, something, (logical principles, having freedom, with evil) or somethings, are not in the realm of God’s sovereignty? William of Occam, believed that, for God to be fully in charge, he must transcend everything.
April 24th, 2011 | 1:25 am | #18
Initially, I seem to be okay with the definition of evil as a privation. Unfortunately, evil would then logically have to be a “negative force;” i.e. darkness is a negative force against light, a positive force. I don’t think evil is just a negative force in some instances. Evil can very much be a positive force that can harm people.
I suppose what I would have to say is that I don’t accept the claim that some who use the privation definition use in that evil “doesn’t exist.” Surely, evil exists, and its effects are real.
April 24th, 2011 | 8:40 am | #19
A blessed Easter all. Our Lord and Savior is risen, He is risen indeed! May your celebrations today be filled with the joy of the knowledge of our risen Christ!
Bret,
Whence cometh evil? I think Scripture is very clear on when and where ‘sin’ entered the human race. It clearly describes an act of disobedience by our first parents in contradistinction to God’s command not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The essence then of sin is a wrecked relationship with God, an autonomous desire to think we know more than God, and to find an identity outside of God. This then flows into a wrecked relationship with one another, and the whole created order. Because of Adam’s sin, Scripture is also clear that God ‘cursed’ His created order: the animals, the woman, the man, the ground (Gen. 3:14-19). Within that curse though is ‘hope’. Hope of a promised Seed that would crush the head of the Serpent (Gen. 3:15). We know from the New Testament that Jesus the Christ was this Seed promised way back there in Gen. 3:15. It is He who brings redemption to those who put their faith and trust in Him.
So evil then is the natural consequence of man’s sin. ‘As humans we are so integral to the natural fabric of things, that when Adam as our representative sinned and turned from God, the entire woop and warp of the world unraveled: crime, war, injustice and oppression, genetic disorders, disease, natural disasters, famine and death’ (paraphrase of Tim Keller, The Reason for God, Penguin Group, 2008, p.170).
April 24th, 2011 | 6:35 pm | #20
Dear Steve, thank you, for your well thought, important remarks. Happy Easter to you, and everyone else, as well!
Despite your good comments, and I really respect them, I believe that, it’s at least possible that God could have allowed our freedom, but restricted humans, from having the capacity to engage in the cruelty, and other forms of evil, we sadly see, on a daily basis.
Since Adam and Eve’s transgression, was transmitted to the whole human race, it seems odd, that all humans, are not prone, to the same types of evil. Why do we have seemingly saintly people, highly moral people, average people (in the moral realm) and terrible people? And, this difference, cannot always be explained by the moral people’s acceptance of Christ: Jewish, Muslim, atheistic, people can be, and often are, saintly, or very good. Perhaps there’s a may to understand all of this.
I accept, however that, God must have a plan, that if we knew about, would explain why/and how the allowance of radical evil, is consistent with His infinite Goodness. I cannot explain it, and I don’t think that anyone else can, as well.
The important thing, is for us all to try and imitate, to the best of our limited, human ability, God’s Goodness: to treat everyone (and I beieve that God wants us all to treat all animals, with compassion, and kindness, as well) with kindness, compassion.
Christ’s compassion, kindness, and love, for the woman, who, under the normal legal system, of the time, required her to be “stoned to death” for her adultery, is my favorite example, of how we should treat everyone, with respect, mercy, and kindness, as Christ has.
May God bless you, Steve, and everyone else!
April 25th, 2011 | 10:30 am | #21
Dear Bret,
You said,
‘Despite your good comments, and I really respect them, I believe that, it’s at least possible that God could have allowed our freedom, but restricted humans, from having the capacity to engage in the cruelty, and other forms of evil, we sadly see, on a daily basis.
We can think of many things that God could have done or should have done if we were running things, right? Our chutzpah has no bounds. The possibilities are endless, but the question that we must address is ‘what did God say He did do?’ What does the text say? Fidelity to Scripture requires that we address the actual text. Any argument we wish to postulate must address the text itself. So to say that God ‘could’ have done this, or ‘could’ have done that is meaningless, for it does not address what God does say He did do.
My wish in our dialogs is that you would undertake to see this crucial point and frame your arguments around the ‘text’ itself.
You said,
‘Since Adam and Eve’s transgression, was transmitted to the whole human race, it seems odd, that all humans, are not prone, to the same types of evil. Why do we have seemingly saintly people, highly moral people, average people (in the moral realm) and terrible people?
What are you trying to argue here? Scripture is very clear that ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ (Rom. 3:23). ‘That there is none righteous, not even one, none who understands, none who seeks for God, all have turned aside…none who does good’ (Rom. 3:10, Psalm 53: 1-3). Before God we are all ‘guilty’, no matter the degree of our depravity. ‘All of us have become like one who is unclean, and even our righteous (good) deeds are like a filthy garment…’(Isaiah 64:6).
You said,
The important thing, is for us all to try and imitate, to the best of our limited, human ability, God’s Goodness: to treat everyone (and I beieve that God wants us all to treat all animals, with compassion, and kindness, as well) with kindness, compassion.
Why? What is your rationale for why we must try to imitate God’s goodness? What is ‘God’s goodness’ by the way? Do you have any supporting text here?
You said,
‘Christ’s compassion, kindness, and love, for the woman, who, under the normal legal system, of the time, required her to be “stoned to death” for her adultery, is my favorite example, of how we should treat everyone, with respect, mercy, and kindness, as Christ has.
And does this one example (granted there are others) negate a system of justice for society to live by? Christ did tell the adulterous woman ‘go and sin no more’ (John 8:11). He recognized her ‘sin’ did He not? Are you not confusing the examples of Christ on a personal level here, and as God Incarnate, who then ‘forgave’ her of sin, with the other teachings in Scripture that all of us as well must look to Him alone for forgiveness of our sin problem, that we are ‘dead’ in sin, to which He alone provides relief?
April 25th, 2011 | 1:05 pm | #22
Sorry but I think this post skirts the boundaries of orthodoxy, at least in my view. Here is why I think so:
1) the statement “why not create everything in the state of perfection” is problematic to start. I would assert that classical Christian teaching is that God did indeed begin with a perfect Creation — else why would He call it all “good” (and in the case of humankind ‘very good”)? The first problem occurs for Ms. Hall in apparently defining ‘perfection’ as “unable to choose sin/evil”. It’s a philosophical/theological question that has long been debated, but it is generally agreed that humanity was created with genuine freedom of the will — ie. the capacity to choose. Explicit in the ability to choose is the ability to choose wrongly (ie sinfully/contrary to the will of God). We certainly see this in Genesis 2:17. Adam is given freedom to choose to eat from any tree in the garden save one. If Adam had been created with the inability to choose wrongly there is no reason for God to issue this command.
A second problem comes in the assertion that God created the conditions deliberately for the Fall so as to accomplish the “revealing of Himself to His people so that we will be able to fully express our pleasure in Him through worship, enjoying Him for an eternity”.
Huh?
That IS the condition in which our first parents were created — perfect fellowship with God in face to face communion. It does not take the Cross to ACCOMPLISH that it takes the Cross to RESTORE that.
The statement “evil isn’t necessary for God’s goodness to exist, but it is necessary for God’s goodness to be revealed to us” is bass ackwards from the actual Biblical account. God’s goodness is evident throughout Creation and is made abundantly clear to our first parents. What makes the Fall so monstrous is that they willingly choose to turn their backs on what is so plainly evident….
I could go on, but this post reminds me how hard it is to do theology on something like a blog. If we start in the wrong place, or by overemphasizing a particular attribute of God, we can end up in some pretty strange places.
I am afraid that in an attempt to protect the sovereignty and glory of God and the Power of the Cross Ms. Hall has crossed over the divide between Calvinism and what Philip Johnson calls “hyperCalvinism”. In so doing she flirts with making God the author of evil and unintentionally demeans the first Creation in order to exalt the New Creation. It seems born of an impatience with mystery.
April 25th, 2011 | 2:18 pm | #23
Pastor C.:
That IS the condition in which our first parents were created — perfect fellowship with God in face to face communion. It does not take the Cross to ACCOMPLISH that it takes the Cross to RESTORE that.
Thank you Pastor C. for clarification on this. The Cross does indeed provide the ‘restoration’ that was lost in the Garden. Beautifully said!
The statement “evil isn’t necessary for God’s goodness to exist, but it is necessary for God’s goodness to be revealed to us” is bass ackwards from the actual Biblical account.
Bass ackwards? Pastor C., you must watch your double entendre’s here. :)))) Couldn’t agree more though, and questioned this when I read it as well.
God’s goodness is evident throughout Creation and is made abundantly clear to our first parents. What makes the Fall so monstrous is that they willingly choose to turn their backs on what is so plainly evident….
Amen and amen! Great post!
April 25th, 2011 | 3:14 pm | #24
I agree that God could not have deliberately created the Fall.
But here’s something I never got: if everything in Heaven is perfect, why would Satan rebel in the first place?
April 25th, 2011 | 3:25 pm | #25
Dear Blake,
Are we confusing ‘perfection’ with no possibility of having ‘free choices’? In other words, ‘perfection’ means robomatons with no free agency?
April 25th, 2011 | 4:33 pm | #26
Steve,
That’s always been something of an issue for me. I don’t think people are robots in heaven; far from it. I’ve been told that in heaven we will have free choice, but that everything will be so perfect that we’ll have no need/want to choose anything evil. But at the same time the possibility of evil (or lack of good, whichever you prefer) in heaven does seem suspect. I lean more toward the agency claim, because I do believe God gave humans what some would call “libertarian” free will.
But I’m also one who rejects the Augustinian notion that we were morally perfect in the Garden, so I’m not sure where that puts me.
April 25th, 2011 | 5:10 pm | #27
Dear Nikolai,
What might be lost in our discussions here is that before God ‘created’, it is meaningless to talk about time, or conditions, (in terms of created beings and a created world), right? Satan and the angels were ‘created’, just like Adam and Eve were. In this, the human race and the angelic race are created entities. From Pastor C.’s post in #22 he speaks to a genuine freedom of the will. Pastor C. does not mention, but I will take the liberty to assume it is his position as well, that Satan and the angelic host were also thus created, with a genuine freedom of the will – capacity to choose. That Satan chose to rebel against his Creator, is clearly seen in Scripture, and his actions have bearing and significance within the created order of the universe to which we are a part. At the consummation, John in the Revelation of Jesus Christ tells us that Satan ‘…was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone…and…will be tormented day and night forever and ever’ (Rev. 20:10).
I think some of these things depends on one’s eschatology, and you and both know there are variant views here. I think we would all agree, that Christ will come a second time at the end of the age to put an end to sin and to make things right though. Is that a fair assessment?
In rejecting the Augustinian notion that we are morally perfect in the Garden, I’m not sure I follow. Can you clarify what you mean here?
April 25th, 2011 | 5:34 pm | #28
Dear Nikolai,
So are we equating Christ’s ‘putting an end to sin’, with no free choices, no free agency as it relates to the New Jerusalem, and the New Heavens and Earth (Rev. 21: 1-2, 10-27)? In other words, in ‘Heaven’, since there will be no sin or any evil thing, does that mean we won’t have the free agency to choose to sin? I think the answer from Scripture is clearly no sin, no possibility of sin, but I’m not so clear on the answer of whether that infers we are then robomatons, with no free agency to make choices on other things conducive to our new Holy character and resurrected bodies.
April 25th, 2011 | 5:57 pm | #29
Nikolai,
One other question. How are you defining ‘libertarian’ free will?
April 25th, 2011 | 6:01 pm | #30
Augustine had three categories of the situation present in the fall (and pardon my Latin, which is probably incorrect; I don’t have the text on me):
Pre-Fall: Passé non peccare et mori: It was possible for humans not to sin and die.
Had humanity not sinned: Non passé peccare et mori: It would not have been possible to sin and die. Theoretically, if Adam had been obedient enough, he would have learned to be obedient and never have sinned.
Post-Fall: Non passé non peccare et mori: Now, it is not possible to not sin and die.
I reject the analysis of what might have happened if Adam and Eve had not taken of the Tree of Knowledge. I don’t think the Garden was morally perfect, nor would have Adam and Eve been perpetually perfect.
April 25th, 2011 | 6:20 pm | #31
It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what libertarian free will is. I suppose I can begin apophatically:
Mark McLeod-Harrison, in his book Apologizing for God, which I highly recommend, defines compatibilist free will as
where freewill is just the ability to follow one’s wants and desires and where one’s wants and deires are the result and warp and woof of a deterministic universe. Acts are only unfree, on this view, when something “external” interferes with one’s natural ability to follow one’s desires. The ability to follow one’s wants and desires is considered enough to grant one responsibility or to hold one responsible.”
McLeod-Harrison then notes the problem with compatibilism:
“The problem here is that if my wants and desires are determined, could I choose to do otherwise and if not, in what sense am I really responsible?”
Libertarian free will, he notes, is
“[when] freewill is incompatible with a deterministic take on the world, from which it follows that if we have freewill, determinism is false. That’s not to say that nothing is determined but rather that human free choice can intervene in the flow of determined events.”
Tied to this is the controversial “Contra-Causal” freedom, which means that some events in the universe are created ex nihlo by humans, albeit through a Christian perspective the ability to do so can only be granted by God.
Simply put, I suppose, compatibilism is the ability to follow one’s wants and desires. Libertarian free will is the will to change one’s wants and desires.
April 25th, 2011 | 6:36 pm | #32
Dear Nikolai,
Thank you for those definitions and analysis. I think I understand your position, but let me ask you a further clarification if I could, ‘What is your view of the origin of sin’? If I think you would answer that it was Adam and Eve’s act of disobedience in eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, then a further question would be, ‘Before this act, before sin, what was the state of God’s created order?
April 25th, 2011 | 6:53 pm | #33
Sin was brought into the world by Adam and Eve. A good analogy as to the state of the world before Adam and Eve is used by Iranaeus, who argued that Adam and Eve were not like perfect individuals but rather like children, who had not yet developed full cognition of the world.
April 25th, 2011 | 8:00 pm | #34
Nikolai,
How was Adam able to name ‘all the cattle, and the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field’ (Gen. 2:20) like as a child, without yet developing full cognition of the world?
April 25th, 2011 | 9:11 pm | #35
I suppose “full cognition of the world” was the wrong way to put it. I don’t believe Adam was stupid or anything of the sort; I’m merely contrasting my idea that Adam and Eve were not morally perfect and knew everything from the Augustinian view.
April 25th, 2011 | 10:05 pm | #36
Hi Nikolai,
You might be interested in a book by Peter Harrison, the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford. In his book, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science, Cambridge University Press, 2007, he writes:
From quite early in the Christian era, patristic writers had commented on the unique intellectual capacities of our first father, on the vast extent of his knowledge, and on the magnitude of his losses at the Fall. These ideas were further elaborated during the Middle Ages and were commonplace in the early modern period. For many champions of the new learning in the seventeenth century the encyclopaedic knowledge of Adam was the benchmark against which their own aspirations were gauged. Francis Bacon’s project to reform philosophy was motivated by an attempt to determine whether the human mind ‘might by any means be restored to its perfect and original condition, or if that may not be, yet reduced to a better condition than that in which it now is’. In 1662…Bacon’s intellectual heirs formed the Royal Society, the goals of which were also expressed by the apologist for the Society, Thomas Sprat, in terms of a regaining of the knowledge that Adam had once possessed.
Quite the opposite from Irenaeus’ view ‘like children had not yet developed full cognition of the world’, don’t you think?
You said,
‘…I’m merely contrasting my idea that Adam and Eve were not morally perfect and knew everything from the Augustinian view…
What would you call someone who had no sin? Morally perfect? Or how would you describe this person who had not sinned?
April 25th, 2011 | 10:10 pm | #37
“What would you call someone who had no sin? Morally perfect? Or how would you describe this person who had not sinned?”
This is where a difficulty arises. While Adam and Eve had not sinned prior to the Fall, thus technically making them without sin, logically I fail to see how one could call them “morally perfect.” If they were morally perfect, then man would not have fallen. The temptation of the Serpent to Eve would have failed, because Eve would have realized that succumbing to a crafty serpent is a morally wrong action.
That is not to say that temptation does not exist in a morally perfect world. Christ was tempted, yet He was morally perfect. A morally perfect agent, though, would always will to the right, not the wrong; that is what makes her morally perfect.
April 25th, 2011 | 10:12 pm | #38
And I do wish to backtrack on my point about Adam, for that I do apologize. I don’t mean that he was stupid or intellectually deficient, but rather that he was not a perfect moral agent.
April 25th, 2011 | 10:16 pm | #39
Dear Steve: Thanks for your comments. We’ve discussed before, the notion of original sin, and my view is that, humans have a proclivity, for sin, but also a proclivity for goodness, as well. I consider the notion that, original sin, is actual sin, transmitted from Adam and Eve, to be conceptually incoherent. The only way, one can be gulity of sin, is to have actually DONE the sin.
The Bible simply doesn’t address all of the mysteries of evil. You seem to view the Bible as, not only a scientific text, but one that addtresses the great philosophical mysteries of life, as well. It does this, to some extent, but you seem to consider it to be the final word, on pretty much everything. Please correct me, if I’m wrong here.
My question that, remains essentially unanswered (because I doubt that it can be), is how Adam and Eve’s disobiedience, set into motion, all the evil, that exists in the world.
I agree with you that, all people sin. But you seem to be implying that, all people are equal sinners, or are considered equally sinful, in God’s eyes. This I do not, and cannot accept. Ted Bundy, and John Paul, the second, are NOT equal sinners, in God’s eyes, and I hope you would agree with me. To believe otherwise, I think, tends to diminish the profound evil that people like Bundy, Stalin, Hitler, etc., commit. I know you don’t intend that. But if we’re all equally sinful, then why worry so much about what these people have done?
There seems to be a tendency, among evangelicals, to see humanity as more sinful, than I think is accurate.
Also, there’s this inclination to read the Bible literally, even in a naively literal fashion, as manifested, by the claim that the universe is only 6 to 10,000 years old. This notion is, with all due respect, ridiculous. The scientific evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a 10-15 billion year old universe, is based on the best evidence, one can have, for any scientific view. It’s simply not debatable, frankly.
God’s Goodness, is not just derived from the bible. It’s evidenced in all of nature, and in our moral propositions. One need not be Christian, to see it, and follow it.
I respect your evangelical position. But it’s literal reading of the bible is highly problematic, for an understanding of evil, amony other things.
The irony of reading the bible too literally is, one may not be reading it, the way God intended, for it to be read.
April 26th, 2011 | 2:29 am | #40
“It’s [Old Earth science] simply not debatable, frankly.”
Actually, it is. I’m not a young earth creationist, but there are plenty of issues with the evidence for an older Earth. Fossil records are skeptical in many cases, as is carbon dating.
Just a thought. I feel the evolution/young earth debate is silly among Christians, but I don’t like it when people say “Oh, this side of the debate isn’t contestable. At all.” I think both are contestable. Although sadly, too often is it the young earthers who shut out the evolutionary scientists with reasonable arguments. I’ve been to too many churches where the word “evolution” is an anti-God anathema, which is a sad way to argue.
April 26th, 2011 | 9:01 am | #41
Nikolai,
While Adam and Eve had not sinned prior to the Fall, thus technically making them without sin, logically I fail to see how one could call them “morally perfect.” If they were morally perfect, then man would not have fallen.
So you disagree with Augustine’s ‘posse non peccare’: the possibility of not sinning? You’re arguing that that there was no possibility of them ‘not’ sinning, that they were incapable in and of themselves to obey God’s command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, and that this was the way God created them, fully incapable of ever obeying his command (Gen. 2:17)?
April 26th, 2011 | 10:08 am | #42
Dear Bret,
I consider the notion that, original sin, is actual sin, transmitted from Adam and Eve, to be conceptually incoherent. The only way, one can be gulity of sin, is to have actually DONE the sin.’
And can you point to a Scripture verse or two that justifies your ‘consideration’? Please, educate me from Scripture that this ‘consideration’ merits any value. Quote a verse or two, Bret, that will help me see the rightness of this view.
You said,
My question that, remains essentially unanswered (because I doubt that it can be), is how Adam and Eve’s disobiedience, set into motion, all the evil, that exists in the world.
I’ve answered this question in the quote from Tim Keller in post #19 above. The question has been answered, Bret, it would be more conducive to integrity to say that you simply don’t accept that answer. But here’s the thing, you fail to offer Scriptural support for your rebuttals. Not one verse or verses quoted in support of why I should give your view any thought or merit. You simply state your opinions, what you think, your ‘consideration’, but nothing else. Appeals to some other person or entity that you claim is an ‘authority’, without referring to a Scriptural verse or verses in support, doesn’t count. There are several logical fallacies involved in that approach.
You said,
But you seem to be implying that, all people are equal sinners, or are considered equally sinful, in God’s eyes. This I do not, and cannot accept. Ted Bundy, and John Paul, the second, are NOT equal sinners, in God’s eyes, and I hope you would agree with me.
Equally guilty in terms of the law, Bret. Why does Jesus say that ‘whoever annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven…’ (Matt. 5:19)?
Why does Jesus call us ‘evil’ (Matt. 7:11)?
Why does the apostle James say that ‘whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, has become guilty of all’ (James 2:10)?
Certainly there are more horrendous sins than others, yet in terms of the law, and in terms of living up to the commandments of the law, we are all ‘guilty’ and ‘evil’ before God. The whole doctrine of the atonement centers around this crucial point.
You say,
Also, there’s this inclination to read the Bible literally, even in a naively literal fashion, as manifested, by the claim that the universe is only 6 to 10,000 years old. This notion is, with all due respect, ridiculous. The scientific evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a 10-15 billion year old universe, is based on the best evidence, one can have, for any scientific view. It’s simply not debatable, frankly.
Ridiculous to you maybe, Bret, but not ridiculous to the many others who consider Scripture to be the self-attesting and self-authenticating revelation of an infallible God. You show your biases and disdain for your Christian brothers and sisters, when you continue to use ad hominem labels to caricaturize them. Instead of addressing the actual arguments, you use words like ‘ridiculous’, and falsely and arrogantly postulate that “it’s simply not debatable, frankly”.
What arrogance my brother, that you alone can decide when something is not debatable. That you alone have a handle on the exact truth, you alone can decide if something is ‘ridiculous’ or not. Rightly does Solomon say: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling” (Prov. 16:18).
April 26th, 2011 | 4:25 pm | #43
Backing up to #17, one answer to that is that things like contradiction are not so much “things God can’t do” as they are simply “inherently ungod.” God is a perfectly consistent Being, so saying God can’t violate non-contradiction is no more “restrictive” than saying God “can’t” be unholy or He “can’t be” a non-Trinity. Not so much “can’t” as just simply “isn’t.” Violating non-contradiction is simply outside of what God is, and therefore, would do.
April 26th, 2011 | 7:21 pm | #44
[...] What strikes me as theodicy done wrong. [...]
April 26th, 2011 | 7:23 pm | #45
[...] What strikes me as theodicy done wrong. [...]
April 26th, 2011 | 11:08 pm | #46
Dear Steve: Thanks for your comments. I’ve never called anyone names. I’ve always been respectful of persons, and I think you know that. I consider certain IDEAS to be ridiculous, and I stand by my assessment: the notion that, the earth is not 4.5 billion years old, is ridiculous.
Now, the people who hold this view, are not ridiculous, and I’ve never said that they were/are. I believe that you, and others who hold this view, are well intentioned, and do so with integrity. But I would not display integrity, if I pretended that the notion of a young earth, is a scientifically respectable view; it’s not. My goal is not to offend, but speak the truth.
April 26th, 2011 | 11:21 pm | #47
Dear Steve: One of the areas that, I think is an obstacle to finding common ground is, you seem to consider all humans “equally guilty” in the eyes of God. I know you do this, with integrity, and with the best of intentions. I disagree. I believe that, God, and not just the law, makes distinctions, in human culpabilty.
Since I do respect you, and everyone else, here, I don’t want to pretend that certain notions, are respectable, when they’re not. To do otherwise, would not show proper respect. I think it would be very condescending of me, to pretend that, a six-ten thousand year old earth, is a respectable view. It’s not. I say this with respect, for those who hold it. And the reason I do so, is the evidence wholly contradicts this view, and you cannot provide a biblical passage or passages, to support it.
Steve, I’m sorry if my assessment of the young earth view, is offensive to you. I respect you, and consider you to be a person of integrity, and intelligence. Which is why I feel I should call the notion of a young earth, waht i think it is. Please reread my comments. I never once called anyone names. I called the IDEA of a young earth ridiculous; but I have respect for the people who hold these views, and I think you know this.
April 26th, 2011 | 11:56 pm | #48
Dear Steve: part of the problem, I think, is we just look at the bible differently. You seem to consider the Bible to be the final authority, on everything religious, and even nonreligious. I don’t. I think it’s an important, holy book, that provides an essential guide, but it was never meant to be the final word, on science, philosophy, or even religion. Interestingly, the bible never says that it’s the final word.
I also stand by my assessment, of “original sin” being the equivalent of “actual sin”, to be incoherent. you ask me to provide you, with biblical support. Actually, the bible says nothing about original sin. And my point, is a logical one: for “sin” to mean anything at all, it must be actual. That is, an inclination to sin, and actually commiting the sin, are two different things, and it’s incorrect, to try and argue that they’re the same thing. If person A merely thinks about a sin, and person B commits the sin, only person B is guilty of the sin. Or to put it, another way, what precisely could Adam and Eve’s descendents be guilty of, when only Adam and Eve, actually commited the act.
My point, about where did evil come from, is this: Adam and Eve chose to commit evil, but what is it, about the metaphysics, of the universe, or reality, that made this choice, even possible?
Steve, I’ve enjoyed talking with you, and don’t want this to get heated. My intent, and I know your intent is the same as mine, is never to offend you, and I feel bad, if you have been offended. I honestly do like you, and respect your intelligence, and integrity. I hope we can make some progress, in our discussions. Thank you, and God Bless you.
April 27th, 2011 | 9:24 am | #49
Bret Lythgoe:
Now, the people who hold this view, are not ridiculous, and I’ve never said that they were/are. I believe that you, and others who hold this view, are well intentioned, and do so with integrity. But I would not display integrity, if I pretended that the notion of a young earth, is a scientifically respectable view; it’s not. My goal is not to offend, but speak the truth.
Bret, and I guess I would not display integrity if I pretended the earth is 4.5 billions of years old? This is not a biblically respectable view and is utterly ridiculous. Two can play that game, right? The science is misleading. So, see there’s the thing: you want to appeal to ‘Science’ on the age of the earth, I want to appeal to ‘Scripture’. Our presuppositions are in play, aren’t they? Your ultimate standard for the age of the earth is ‘Science’, mine is God’s self-attesting, self-authenticating revelation in Scripture.
As Christians, Bret, how do you think we should then go about solving whose presuppositions are right? Is this an unsolvable dilemma? Science says one thing, God says another. Who should we trust?
Bret Lythgoe:
I never once called anyone names. I called the IDEA of a young earth ridiculous; but I have respect for the people who hold these views, and I think you know this.
Bret, do you believe that gets you off the hook? The ideas and the people who hold those ideas are one and the same in terms of argumentation. To use ad hominem labels weakens your argument. It’s a logical fallacy and one resorts to it when one can’t answer the charge or defend one’s position. It’s a weak and pitiable attempt to hide the weakness of one’s position. Stop using them. Defend your position from strong argumentation and Scriptural support, not logical fallacies like ad hominem.
Bret Lythgoe:
My point, about where did evil come from, is this: Adam and Eve chose to commit evil, but what is it, about the metaphysics, of the universe, or reality, that made this choice, even possible?
Bret, what are your assumptions/presuppositions behind this question? You agree that God is Creator of the Universe, right? Before His fiat act of Creation, we can’t speak of time, matter or energy in terms of what was created, because there was nothing created yet. God in the fullness of Deity was there, but since nothing had been created, and Scripture is silent until God starts to speak into creation, to bring things forth by His Word, what can we say? Since He has created everything which now exists, the metaphysical question is answered. You surely aren’t proposing that we can ever answer the question about God, His being, where He came from, are you?
The question of evil is answered in Scripture. Whether you want to believe that or not, I’ll leave to you. I have already stated my position from Scripture about the entrance of sin and evil. Whether you choose to believe this, or offer up one of your ideas, I’ll leave to you. But I’m asking you, I’m pleading with you, support it with Scripture. I really don’t want to hear your opinions or what you ‘consider’, unless you can show me from Scripture that your view has merit. This is how brothers in Christ should debate. If you were a non-Christian the debate would follow along different lines, wouldn’t it? Appeals to authority, my opinion, what I feel, public consensus, great moral literature, etc. So in essence, your argumentation is non-Christian in nature when you don’t use Scripture to support your positions. It makes me question, how well you know your Bible. Whether you spend much time reading and digesting it. Meditating on it in the manner of King David, ‘O, how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day (Ps. 119:97).
I enjoy our dialogs Bret, I’ve said that before. I love you as my brother in Christ. But when you appeal to any other authority, such as the interpretations of science, or the opinions of men, it means you have automatically rejected the Scriptures as your ‘ultimate’ standard. For a Christian, this has dire consequences and can lead to all sorts of error. Since God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), we would do well to listen to ‘all’ of His counsel and revelation in the only standard that passes all its own standards of truth and gives a foundation for successfully interpreting all other claims to truth: Holy Scripture.
April 27th, 2011 | 1:17 pm | #50
“This [Evolutionary theory] is not a biblically respectable view and is utterly ridiculous.”
Actually, it isn’t. There are plenty of good arguments for theistic evolution. Moreover, the young-earth theory relies on a very literal reading of Genesis, which isn’t necessarily the correct way to read it, nor is it the way that some of the people during the time of its writing probably read it.
April 27th, 2011 | 2:42 pm | #51
Hi Nikolai,
Greetings brother, but you still haven’t answered my question to you in post #41 above. Still waiting to hear from you on this.
I’ll reply to your comment in #50 above after we get this other matter settled.
April 27th, 2011 | 3:56 pm | #52
Dear Bret,
Wanted to comment on something else you said.
Bret Lythgoe:
And the reason I do so, is the evidence wholly contradicts this view, and you cannot provide a biblical passage or passages, to support it.
And what evidence is that, Bret? More arrogant chutzpah in thinking and reasoning, in claiming that there is no biblical support for what you claim to be irrefutable fact. In a post on another thread earlier this year or maybe last, you failed to answer my questions concerning Gen. 1 and the language used there. Is this the ‘Biblical support’ that you claim I haven’t provided? Your arrogance is unbecoming. If you truly wish to debate this issue, then please provide your ‘evidence’ that the language of Genesis 1 supports your view that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. To play the ad hominem fallacy as you are wont to do: The idea that the earth is 4.5 billions of years old is farsical, laughable, utterly ridiculous, biblically untenable, and nonsensical. It is married to the philosophy of methodological naturalism and should not be respected by any Christian who knows his/her Bible.
April 27th, 2011 | 4:17 pm | #53
Steve,
It’s difficult to say. I honestly don’t think that they would have become morally perfect beings. I think God gave us free will for a specific reason.
Moreover, the sin brought into the world was contingent. It began through an act of deception, paired with Eve not fully knowing God’s command with regards to eating the tree. So say, perhaps, that the serpent hadn’t come at that time. No one could predict if the serpent would come again, or anything else of the sort. So I suppose that they could have been tempted later on, but that’s an externality we can’t predict.
April 27th, 2011 | 4:55 pm | #54
Hi Nikolai,
Nikolai Volk:
It’s difficult to say.
Why is it difficult to say whether God created them fully incapable of obeying his command in Gen. 2:17 not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil? What does the ‘text’ indicate? What use would God have of giving this command, if He knew they were fully incapable of obeying it since that was the way He created them?
To reject Augustine’s ‘posse non peccare’, you are left with a contradiction. Or the best argument you can put forth since you can’t or don’t want to answer that question, is “It’s difficult to say”?, and offering up only conjecture?
In response to your comment in #50 above, I notice that you inserted [Evolutionary theory] into my comment to Bret Lythgoe about the use of ad hominem in debate between brothers in Christ. My comment to Bret was for illustrative purposes only and had to do with the age of the earth, not Evolutionary Theory, although you may have unwittingly made my point, because Evolutionary Theory and the Age of the Earth are two sides of the same coin. Evolutionism cannot proceed without long ages required for the slow and gradual changes to occur in support of the Theory. So the two go hand in hand. You cannot have Evolutionary Theory without long, long ages for the earth.
As to your comment that there are ‘plenty of good arguments for theistic evolution’, or that ‘young-earth theory relies on a very literal reading of Genesis, and that this isn’t necessarily the correct way to read it’, I beg to differ. I would be happy to dialog with you on this and propose that you present your arguments with Scriptural proofs so that we may begin our dialog.
April 27th, 2011 | 7:19 pm | #55
Dear Steve: thanks for taking the time to respond. I have never engaged in ad hominem attacks. The later, consist of attacking persons. I have attacked IDEAS. Which is perfectly proper. You have every right to attack the old earth view. But, the empirical evidence, and arguments, for the legitimacy of, not only an old earth, but also evolution, is pursuasive to the vast majority of scientists.
April 27th, 2011 | 7:57 pm | #56
Dear Bret,
Thank you for that clarification. So let us proceed with attacking each others ideas then. You and I can both use words like ‘ridiculous’, ‘naive’, ‘not debatable, frankly’, and all other such vocabulary, in order to belittle each other’s position. This should help us narrow in on the truth of the matter.
April 27th, 2011 | 8:08 pm | #57
Dear Steve, you seem to imply that, belief in an old earth, is not consistent with Christian belief. Are you familar with Dr. Hugh Ross? Please consider going to his website, Reason to believe.org. he provides many good reasons to believe in an old earth. He’s also a devout Christian.
April 27th, 2011 | 8:15 pm | #58
Sorry, that’s Reasons.org
April 27th, 2011 | 8:20 pm | #59
Home › Age of the Earth › Biblical Evidence for an Old Earth ›
April 27th, 2011 | 8:53 pm | #60
Dear Bret,
Very familiar with Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe and have read at least four of his books. Have attended one of his debates at our local university with the atheist Michael Shermer. Being a devout Christian does not mean one cannot be in error on one’s understanding of Scripture and one’s interpretations on the age of the Earth. Are you familiar with Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International? Have you had a chance to read any of his books? http://www.creation.com.
April 27th, 2011 | 8:55 pm | #61
What, precisely, do you think Dr. Ross, is wrong about, Steve?
April 27th, 2011 | 9:01 pm | #62
“Being in a devout Christian does not mean one cannot be in error on one’s understanding of Scripture and one’s interpretations on the age of the Earth”. Very well stated, Steve. At least we can agree on this.
April 27th, 2011 | 9:07 pm | #63
Dear Bret,
Since you’ve asked me to consider going to the Reasons to Believe website, and I have done so, and do so on a fairly regular basis, is it fair of me to ask you to please consider going to http://www.creation.com, or http://www.icr.org, or http://www.answersingenesis.com and asking you what you think is wrong about, say, Jonathan Sarfati’s position, Bret?
April 27th, 2011 | 9:17 pm | #64
Dear Bret,
My comment #63 is delayed in posting to the ‘Recent Comments’ column to the right, so I will restate it here and see if it posts. Maybe too many URL”s. Don’t know if you can see my comment #63 above, (I’m looking at it right now as I post this comment #64).
Since you’ve asked me to consider going to the Reasons to Believe website, and I have done so, and do so on a fairly regular basis, is it fair of me to ask you to please consider going to http://www.creation.com, and asking you what precisely you think is wrong, with say, Jonathan Sarfati’s position?
April 28th, 2011 | 12:15 am | #65
Dear Steve: That’s fair. I’ll look at it. I have a lot of respect for Dr. Ross, and the work he’s done (and you may as well). I’ll check out Johnathon Sartati, and maybe he’s also deserving of respect.
April 28th, 2011 | 6:03 am | #66
Dear Steve: has an old earth view, and evolution, been used, profitably, by those who wish to advance atheism? Yes, undoubtably. but we play right into their hands, by agreeing with them that, the old age of the earth (4.5 billion years old) and evolution, are necessarily incongruent with theism, in general, and Christianity in particular.
There are no good reasons, to concede that these theories, contradict a belief in God.
Although I accept the theistic evolution, as proposed by Biologos, and its principal founder, Francis Collins, M.D.,Ph.D, over the views of Hugh Ross, Ph.D., since the latter seems to reject evolutionary theory, I fully support Dr. Ross’s work, for an old earth. He’s pointed out the starlight problem: since, we know, based on sound arguments, and empirical data that, light travels at a certain speed, (186,000 miles persecond) and through the use of spectra, to detect red shifts, of newly discovered galaxies, that these galaxies are trillions of light years away, that these galaxies, must be very ancient. Of course, Dr. Ross has more reasons, for an old earth/universe, and, moreover, explains it much better than my rather lame summary, here, one should go to reasons.org, for all his excellent arguments.
To deny an old earth, would mean to deny the efficacy of the methodology, used by nearly every astronomer, and astrophysicist, as well as their instruments. This is highly untenable, to say the least.
April 28th, 2011 | 6:16 am | #67
Dear Steve: I will study Dr. Sartati’s arguments. That’s only fair. He isn’t an astronomer/astrophysicist, but his arguments, and evidence, are what matter, so I’ll see what he presents.
April 28th, 2011 | 7:44 am | #68
Dear Bret,
Dr. John Hartnett who writes for CMI is an astronomer/astrophysicist, so you might want to check his arguments while you’re checking Dr. Jonathan Sarfati’s. By the way, Dr. Sarfati has a Ph.D in physical chemistry and was awarded the title of F.I.D.E. Master (F.M.) by the International Chess Federation in 1988.
Dr. Jason Lisle with Answers in Genesis is an astronomer/astrophysicist, so you might want to check his arguments as well at the Answers in Genesis website.
April 28th, 2011 | 7:52 am | #69
Bret Lythgoe:
To deny an old earth, would mean to deny the efficacy of the methodology, used by nearly every astronomer, and astrophysicist, as well as their instruments. This is highly untenable, to say the least.
No, Bret, it doesn’t. The measurements that geologists make and the instruments they use in radiometric dating is real science in the here and now. It is the unwarranted extrapolation of those rates into an unseen past, and the assumptions they use to extrapolate an old earth from the data that are false and misleading. That is what is highly untenable.
April 28th, 2011 | 8:13 am | #70
Bret Lythgoe:
has an old earth view, and evolution, been used, profitably, by those who wish to advance atheism? Yes, undoubtably. but we play right into their hands, by agreeing with them that, the old age of the earth (4.5 billion years old) and evolution, are necessarily incongruent with theism, in general, and Christianity in particular.
Fallacious reasoning brother. Ahtheist Jerry Coyne in some recent comments last year had this to say:
“Attempts to reconcile God and evolution keep rolling off the intellectual assembly line,” he laments. “It never stops, because the reconciliation never works.”
Al Mohler has commented thusly concerning Coyne’s comments:
Coyne is one of the most recognized authorities on evolution in the world today. He sees those who argue for an accommodation of evolutionary science and religious belief as either dishonest or delusional. He is increasingly frustrated with scientists who make what he sees as a fallacious argument — that Christianity and evolution can be reconciled.
April 29th, 2011 | 3:15 am | #71
Steve, your comments, (#69), are, in my view, an excellent example, of my point: to concede that, evolution is sufficient evidence, for an atheistic view, and therefore one should either become an atheist,(or at least an agnostic), if one accepts evolution, or, one should deny evolution, and accept a literal reading of the bible, is fallacious, it’s a false choice.
I’ve read enough of Coyle (his book reviews, in THE NEW REPUBLIC, for example) to know his seeming lack of respect for religion. His assertion that, one is either “dishonest or delusional”, if one sees a way of harmonizing evolution, and Chrisitianity, is such a ridiculous statement that, I’m suprised anyone would give it a second look, except out of derision. Based on what I’ve read of Coyle, he deserves little respect, for the comments, and analysis, he’s made, concerning evolution, and its compatibility, (or lack thereof) with Chrisitianity, or other forms of Theism. He’s an expert on evolution, but it’s fallacious, to appeal to his authority, on this, to argue for evolution’s supposed incompatibility with Chrisitianity.
It’s NOT a fallacious argument that, Christianity and evolution can be reconciled. Where’s the flaw? ONLY if one reads the bible in a purely literal way, is there a flaw.
Perhaps Coyle should tell Francis Collins, a man who knows a thing or two, about evolution, about his formulation that, one who attempts to reconcile Chrisitianity and evolution is either “delusional or dishonest”? My guess is, Dr. Collins would get a good laugh at it, and then instruct Coyle of his fallacious reasoning, and/or lack of understanding.
Coyle could also tell this to John Polkinghorne, a physicist, and anglican priest, as well as Richard Swinburne, professor of philosophy of religion, at Oxford, Keith Ward, professor of religion at Oxford, as well as Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, about how they’re al either “delusional or dishonest” for believing in Christianity’s compatibility with evolution. My guess is, they would perhap, give Coyle a lesson in basic Chrisitianity, logic, etc.
Oh, let’s not forget the statement of the late Harvard Biologist, Stephen J. Gould, who argued that, evolution does not necessitate one being either an atheist, or a religious believer, and he pointed out a well respected biologist, I forget his name right now, but I can find it for you, who is also a devout member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Just because Coyle is a leading expert on evolution, in no way indicates that his assessment of religion is correct; it’s not. Richard Dawkins, is a leading expert, on evolutionary biology, but we both agree that, his assessment of Christianity is terribly flawed.
Pope John Paul, the second, a man who was VASTLY learned, believed that evolution and Chrisitianity were compatible.
I’m not arguing that, because a bunch of authorities are in favor of evolution and Christianity’s compatibilty, therefore they’re compatible. That would make me guilty of the fallacy of appaeling to authority. But the fact that, so many highly accomplished people do believe in Christianity and evolution’s compatibility, seems to make it less plausible that they’re ALL either “delusional or dishonest”.
April 29th, 2011 | 3:27 am | #72
I might also add that, not only is Coyle’s claim that, one who argues for religion and evolution’s compatibility “either delusional or dishonest”, patently offensive, since it implies that those who do, lack integrity, or proper mental stability, but seems to place him in the minority.
That is, not only do the above people (comments 70) accept the compatibility of evolution and Christianity, but the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, does as well.
April 29th, 2011 | 3:49 am | #73
Let me add some more people who Coyle would have to place in the “delusional or dishonest” camp: Simon Conway Morris, biologist, Cambridge University; Kenneth B. Miller (as distinguished between Kenneth R. Miller, of Brown, cited, above); Owen Gingerich, astronomer; Karl Giberson, physicist;theologian and biochemist Alister McGrath, of Oxford; NT Wright, New Testament scholar; biologist Joan roughgarden of Standaford University; biologist denis Lamoureux, of St. Joseph’s College; biologist Darrel Falk, of Point Loma Nazarene University; microbiologist Richard G. Colling, of Olivet Nazarene University; paleontologist Robert T. Bakker; R.J. Berry, professor of Genetics at University college London. The late biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky, the Russian Orthodox (who was pointed out by stephen j. Gould, whose name i forget, above, off the top of my head), who helped, along with the biologist Ronald Fisher, also a Christian, devise the modern evolutionary synthesis. (all of the above names, come from the Wikipedia entry for “Theistic Evolution”.) (I’m usually skeptical of wikipedia, but the names here, are all properly referenced).
April 29th, 2011 | 3:53 am | #74
Also, not only were Fisher and Dobzhansky devisors of the modern evolutionary synthesis (source: wikipedia entry for Theistic Evolution) but Dobzhansky also wrote an essay “NOTHING IN BIOLOGY MAKES SENSE EXCEPT IN THE LIGHT OF EVOLUTION”. (source: Wikiipedia entry, on “Theistic Evolution”).
April 29th, 2011 | 4:29 am | #75
Steve, you claim that, the scientists who use their instruments, that conclude that the earth and universe are old, are making unwarranted extrapolations, about the past. but aren’t “young earth creation scientists” doing something similar? That is, if they’re doing real science, they would have to make extrapolations, about the past, based on their observations, and deductions, correct? And, presumably, these extrapolations, that they make, support, in their view, a 6-10,000 year old earth.
So the real question is not making extrapolations, about the past, based on sound empirical data, but CORRECT extrapolations, as i’m sure you would agree.
April 29th, 2011 | 7:07 am | #76
oops, sorry, I kept calling John Coyne, “Coyle”.
April 29th, 2011 | 7:11 am | #77
That’s Jerry Coyne! It’s way too early Lol! :)
April 29th, 2011 | 9:50 am | #78
Is seven posts in a row a new record?
April 29th, 2011 | 9:56 am | #79
Bret Lythgoe:
Steve, your comments, (#69), are, in my view, an excellent example, of my point: to concede that, evolution is sufficient evidence, for an atheistic view, and therefore one should either become an atheist,(or at least an agnostic), if one accepts evolution, or, one should deny evolution, and accept a literal reading of the bible, is fallacious, it’s a false choice.
Bret, the two views are diametrically opposed and Coyne and others see the dishonest and delusional nature of trying to fuse them. They can read the Judeo-Christian Scriptures for themselves, and understand the nature of the text (even though they don’t believe it). They see the duplicity better than the BioLogos folks do and rightly scoff at attempts to harmonize them. The lesson from Coyne is the right lesson to learn, either accept evolution with it’s God-denying hypothesis, everything by blind, unguided chance, or accept the Creator God of Holy Scripture and understand we are accountable to Him and Him alone.
Bret Lythgoe:
He’s an expert on evolution, but it’s fallacious, to appeal to his authority, on this, to argue for evolution’s supposed incompatibility with Chrisitianity.
It’s ‘because’ he’s an expert on evolution that he understands the two views cannot be harmonized. It’s ‘because’ he can understand the claims of Judeo-Christianity and can ‘read’ our Scriptures for himself that he says any attempt to do so is delusional. He rejects the God of Judeo-Christianity and no attempt to tell him that God used evolution as His means of creation will convince him otherwise. He rightly understands that any attempt to do so is dishonest, compromising, and duplicitous. It’s the folks at BioLogos to their shame who can’t see this as clearly as Coyne does.
Bret Lythgoe:
I’m not arguing that, because a bunch of authorities are in favor of evolution and Christianity’s compatibilty, therefore they’re compatible. That would make me guilty of the fallacy of appaeling to authority. But the fact that, so many highly accomplished people do believe in Christianity and evolution’s compatibility, seems to make it less plausible that they’re ALL either “delusional or dishonest”.
We are all susceptible to self-delusion, Bret, to compromise, and incorrect interpretations of the physical world. That’s why we need the light of Scripture and God’s revelation to tell us what He did, when He did it, and what is ‘actual’ truth.
April 29th, 2011 | 10:58 am | #80
Tom & Craig: Lol! It’s a good incentive to get the name right, the first time! Lol! It’s good to break records, but, I wasn’t hoping for this one…:-)
Steve: Thanks for your response. Jerry Coyne (suprise, I got it right :)) believes that, belief in Christianity is incompatable, with belief in evolutionary theory. However, as we see, many, many, great thinkers, do believe both. Therefore, Coyne must conclude that, these thinkers are either dishonest, or delusional.
Steve, you agree with his assessment, but, obviously reach a completely different view that, evolution, is to be rejected.
But why, really? Evolution, in a nutshell, is the notion that, species change, as a result of random mutations, in their genetic material, and natural selection: those beings with genetic material, and other features that, are conducive to their survival, will live long enough, to reproduce, thereby spreading their “fit” genes, to their offspring. The random mutations, “create”, over millions of years, the diversity, of life we see.
this seems to contradict the Bible’s teaching that, God created all life. There’s certainly nothing random about God’s creating. So, one can either accept the Bible’s teaching that, God, created us, or evolution, where random gene changes, that, just happen to be conducive to the survival of the individuals, that possess them, cause all of life, in its complexity, and deversity, and the poor creatures, whose genetic mutations happened to not be compatable to their survival, died out. The choice seems clear.
Or does it? Does the Bible state, precisely, how God created all life? No, we’re left to our own devices, to speculate how that happened. What if God, decided to create, through the natural selection process? He decided to allow creation to unfold, this way. Why not?
Since we don’t really know, how God created life, from the Bible, it seems reasonable if, the evidence shows that evolution occurred, this is how it was created.
Another important distinction: appearance vs. reality. The natural selection process, appears random, to us. But that may be due to our limited perspective. From God’s perspective, it’s not random at all.
Also, there’s the issue of how life arose, in the first place. The probability, of life arising, in the inhospitable environment, of the primitive earth, by chance, seems very low.
Interestingly, in the Bible, the animals came first, then humans. This has been confirmed, through evolution. God created life, through the natural selection process. Who are we, to say He couldn’t?
April 29th, 2011 | 2:05 pm | #81
Bret Lythgoe:
But why, really? Evolution, in a nutshell, is the notion that, species change, as a result of random mutations, in their genetic material, and natural selection: those beings with genetic material, and other features that, are conducive to their survival, will live long enough, to reproduce, thereby spreading their “fit” genes, to their offspring. The random mutations, “create”, over millions of years, the diversity, of life we see.
You and I have been over this before Bret. You can go to the websites that we have talked about above to find answers if you are truly seeking. But you are really not seeking. You have made up your mind that God has not accurately recorded His thoughts and actions in Scripture, since you reject (at least many portions of) the Scriptures. This is where it ends for me, we have gone down this road many times, and I have laid out my case, and you have laid out yours. Since both entrenched, unless you have specific questions about the Scripture that supports a young earth, I will say ‘adieu’, and conclude that there is no further use for discussion with you on this matter.
April 29th, 2011 | 2:39 pm | #82
Steve, thank you for your time. It looks like we are at an impasse.
April 29th, 2011 | 3:03 pm | #83
Dear Bret,
I’m saddened Bret. We’ll pick it up in another thread I’m sure. I’m not going anywhere, and I know you’re not either.
April 30th, 2011 | 1:44 am | #84
Dear Steve, we’ll get back to it, on another thread. Thank you, for your kindness, and intelligence, that you always bring to these discussions. It’s possible that we can find a solution, at some time, in the future, to this “evolution debate”. Thanks again, and take care. God bless.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact