Many North American Christians have been influenced by the remarkable political and social witness of the great Abraham Kuyper in the Netherlands. I am pleased to count myself among them. Thus it saddens me to read the following BBC report: Dutch rethink Christianity for a doubtful world.
An imposing figure in black robes and white clerical collar, Mr Hendrikse presides over the Sunday service at the Exodus Church in Gorinchem, central Holland. It is part of the mainstream Dutch Protestant Church, and the service is conventional enough, with hymns, readings from the Bible, and the Lord’s Prayer. But the message from Mr Hendrikse’s sermon seems bleak – “Make the most of life on earth, because it will probably be the only one you get”. “Personally I have no talent for believing in life after death,” Mr Hendrikse says. “No, for me our life, our task, is before death.”
Nor does Klaas Hendrikse believe that God exists at all as a supernatural thing. “When it happens, it happens down to earth, between you and me, between people, that’s where it can happen. God is not a being at all… it’s a word for experience, or human experience.”
Mr Hendrikse describes the Bible’s account of Jesus’s life as a mythological story about a man who may never have existed, even if it is a valuable source of wisdom about how to lead a good life.
Much as a vibrant Puritanism had turned to unitarianism within a century of the settlement of New England, so has Kuyper’s Gereformeerd community been largely assimilated into the Dutch mainline Protestantse Kerk, which, though pockets of vitality definitely exist within it, is far from being a confessional church.
However, the story is not over, and signs were already present four years ago that secularism in the Netherlands may be running its course. This Weekly Standard article is cause for hope: Holland’s Post-Secular Future. Whenever we are tempted to despair over the apparent progress of secularism, we need only recall that ultimately it cannot satisfy. As St. Augustine put it so well, our hearts are restless until they find rest in the One who alone can provide it.
August 5th, 2011 | 3:27 pm | #1
While I think I can understand the sentiment, I’d like to discover a compelling argument for the claim that secularism “ultimately cannot satisfy.”
Also, do we mean that secularism cannot satisfy in the way that wisdom and learning cannot satisfy (with much learning comes much sorrow)? While such a fact might partially explain our anemic commitments to wisdom and learning, it would also seem to provide debunking explanation for our attachments to folly and ignorance (as opposed to a justification). Similarly, maybe we’ve just offered a debunking explanation for the persistence of religion.
August 8th, 2011 | 8:09 am | #2
Could it be JGY, that if there is no God, you are just a cog in the machine of a universe that cares not one wit for your aspirations, your hopes, your feelings, your dreams, your altruism? That whatever purpose you assign to your life, in the big scheme of things, is meaningless? That whatever schema you come up with to feel good about yourself is nothing more than mere illusion? You live, you die, that’s it, nothing more?
August 8th, 2011 | 10:30 am | #3
If this were facebook, I’d click “like” under Steve Drake’s comment.
August 8th, 2011 | 1:04 pm | #4
Dear David Koysis,
I only humbly fall under your cogent original analysis. Blessings.
August 8th, 2011 | 2:41 pm | #5
Just as non-believers are prone to neglecting the emotional importance of faith to a believer, believers are prone to exaggerating the supposed meaninglessness of life from the non-believer’s perspective. And whenever someone starts talking about “the big scheme of things,” blindness to all the important details of our lives is almost certain to follow.
What I would like to discover is a compelling argument for the claim that secularism cannot satisfy–especially for any sense of “satisfy” that wouldn’t also support a debunking explanation of the faith.
August 8th, 2011 | 9:06 pm | #6
JGY<secularism cannot satisfy especially for any sense of satisfy that wouldn't also support a debunking explanation of the faith. Coherence?
August 9th, 2011 | 9:18 pm | #7
Nice post, David. From the Weekly Standard piece: “The reason the Christian population of Holland has stopped shrinking and is likely to avoid further decline is a phenomenon that until now has been largely overlooked by commentators on Dutch politics and society: Christian immigration. Analysts usually focus on the one million Muslim immigrants and their offspring who have made the Netherlands their home since the early 1950s. But in the past decade, Muslim immigration has been overtaken by a larger stream of immigrants, namely Christians from Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Europe. An SCP estimate puts the number of Christian immigrants in Holland at around 700,000– and rising fast. Recent immigration reports suggest that for every new Muslim moving to Holland, there are at least two new Christian immigrants.” As I recall this was a trend predicted by Phillip Jenkins in God’s Continent. http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Continent-Christianity-Europes-Religious/dp/019531395X
August 10th, 2011 | 4:37 am | #8
JGY,
Man is a worshiper. A system that tries to eliminate God will simply replace Him. Is the new god satisfying? Addicts are satisfied with every new high, but are they truly satisfied? Only God can satisfy. If you don’t believe that, then I understand why you’re a leftist.
August 10th, 2011 | 9:52 am | #9
Again a “like” for Orthodoxdj, except to note that idolatry is a universal human tendency and hardly restricted to so-called leftists.
August 10th, 2011 | 1:43 pm | #10
I suspect evangelicals are again oversimplifying the situation when expressing such sentiments.
In what sense is God “replaced” in every non-theistic system of thought? Since “God did it” explanations are oftentimes replaced with more explanatory accounts, there are often particular cases in which God’s replacement is more satisfying–and in a non-debunking way.
August 12th, 2011 | 7:05 am | #11
In what sense is God “replaced” in every non-theistic system of thought?
Man seeks to “serve himself” and ends up worshiping some false god instead – enslaved to his lust for women (or men), power, control, money, intellectual pride, or whatever it is he ends up making the center and the purpose of his life.
It is the nature of man to serve. The rejection/denial of this truth is what makes man turn away from God and religion: he does not want it to be true. But it always ends up to be true: a man with nothing to serve is a man with no reason to live.
August 12th, 2011 | 12:17 pm | #12
Sounds a bit sensational Blake. As if there aren’t non-theists who simply work their jobs, love their wives and children, take care of their neighbors, and–without exactly “worshiping” it–occasionally find time to go fishing with their buddies.
August 13th, 2011 | 10:54 am | #13
Sounds a bit sensational Blake. As if there aren’t non-theists who simply work their jobs, love their wives and children, take care of their neighbors, and–without exactly “worshiping” it–occasionally find time to go fishing with their buddies.
You mean the people who simply have not yet stopped to think about what their life is or what it means to them?
Who don’t know what they do or why they do it, except that it’s what everyone else does?
Like the guy in Ikiru?
Do such people even exist?
August 13th, 2011 | 3:39 pm | #14
You don’t have to be thinking of an Ivan Ilyich here, Blake. There are non-theists, I would suggest, who enjoy ordinary lives: they have rich and meaningful relationships with their children, their spouses, their parents, their friends; they find a not insignificant amount of satisfaction in their jobs, their community involvement, their reading of great literature, summer hikes with close friends; they are deeply saddened at the deaths of their friends and loved ones, but they aren’t even tempted to think that this makes such relationships meaningless; they believe that they will one day pass out of existence, but this doesn’t at all strike them as a compelling reason to deny the meaningfulness of their actual relationships and projects, or that such things entirely devoid of satisfaction. They, with the rest of humanity, recognize that life is also full of suffering and unfairness, but this also doesn’t negate the truly wonderful things. They recognize the imperfections in themselves–and yet their children still need them, their friends stil like them, and their wives still love them.
August 13th, 2011 | 6:03 pm | #15
JGY,
“I’d like to discover a compelling argument for the claim that secularism “ultimately cannot satisfy.”
I hardly consider “there are those who are happy” as a sufficient or even compelling answer to Steve Drake’s. I’d like to hear a compelling argument that love actually has any meaning from a non-theist point of view. You’re post is riddled with buzzwords like love and joy, as if they are universally defined, when from a non-theist’s own beliefs they are null and void because love is merely an arbitrary feeling created by humans and is preceded by human existence. Love, according to their own beliefs, has no meaning, no existence, outside of their own existence. It is merely an allusion created by people, hardwired into their brain by millions of years to allow humanity to evolve and better survive is it not?
Non-theistic beliefs have only the natural, the physiological. Feelings are nothing more than chemical reactions occurring in the brain, are they not? People are nothing but masses of cells that are slightly more evolved than every other mass of cells are they not?
People are nothing but masses of cells and love is nothing but a chemical reaction that the same masses of cells have arbitrarily decided was important. That doesn’t sound very satisfying to me.
August 13th, 2011 | 6:36 pm | #16
Livingstone, you make too many assumptions about non-theism. The result is just a strawman. The phrase you place in quotation marks is not mine.
I won’t bother to respond further until you reign in your assumptions, or at least provide arguments for them.
August 14th, 2011 | 1:36 am | #17
JGY,
Good job telling Livingston what his faulty assumptions were. Moreover, much of what Livingston said isn’t strawman but are instead reasonable objections that people have debated about for centuries. The “hard problem,” as it is known, is the problem of explaining exactly what consciousness is. In a recent book, called “The Really Hard Problem,” the problem demonstrated as even harder to explain through a naturalistic purview is meaning. What is meaning, if we all are just atoms falling through space? It’s a difficult question to answer. It’s not an “unbased assumption;” it’s a legitimate philosophical confusion.
August 14th, 2011 | 1:56 am | #18
Any of you are welcomed to try to formulate an argument that starts with non-theism and, without adding extraneous assumptions, concludes that “people are nothing but a mass of cells,” that “love is nothing but a chemical reaction,” or to “love is merely an arbitrary feeling.” Then show from such conclusions that the nontheist’s life is meaningless and devoid of satisfaction. Good luck.
So far it all just looks like more of the usual kookiness and shoddy thinking that circulates unquestioned among evangelicals.
August 14th, 2011 | 4:26 am | #19
JGY,
You won’t bother answering or you simply can’t? You’re awfully condescending for someone who’s only contribution for a rebuttal thus far has been ad hominem and null responses.
These aren’t assumption’s about non-theist beleifs it’s ACTUAL beliefs that several non-theists have.
How could humans be anything other than a mass of cells? How could love be anything other than a chemical reaction? If only the natural exists, everything is a product of the chemical universe. Love is a product of the physical universe.
Since you enjoy pure blanket statements, and have made no precedent effort to find specific problems you have with my “assumptions” I’ll lay it out for you in sub-points, and you can tell me which sub-point you have a problem with or that you think is illogical.
1. Non-theists generally don’t believe in the supernatural.
2. Theists therefore usually believe that there is only the natural realm, nothing more.
3. Science, although imperfect, is often sought as the ultimate source of understanding of the physical and natural universe, and is therefore a source of truth for non-theists.
4. Since there is only the natural realm, all interactions and reactions are products of the physical realm.
5. All emotions and feelings such as love and joy are merely products of the physical universe.
6. It is theorized and tested that feelings of love and joy are caused by chemical reactions in the brain. Since the natural universe is all that exists, and everything is a product of the physical universe, it is very likely that physical reactions are the cause of love in a non-theist point of view.
Love for a naturalist is nothing more than a chemical reaction that humans have arbitrarily decided is more important than other chemical reactions.
August 14th, 2011 | 5:25 am | #20
Livingstone, let’s examine your argument up to step 4. Put your thinking cap on and try not to get offended.
Consider your use of the term “natural.” It sometimes means “everything excluding the supernatural”, or, more simply, “the non-supernatural”. That’s really the only meaning for “natural” you are allowed in step 2, as any other sense of the term (of which there are many) would likely render your inference problematic. In other words, step 2 should read something like this:
“[Non-]Theists therefore believe that there is only the non-supernatural, nothing more.”
Your step 3 ought to be clarified. If all you really mean to show from it is “science is a source of truth for non-theists” then there is no problem with it. Bu it also wouldn’t appear to contribute anything to the rest of your argument.
Step 4 is problematic. Remember that by “natural” all you can legitimately mean is “the non-supernatural.” But then consider the appropriate paraphrase of step 4: “Since [according to the non-theist's beliefs] there is only the non-supernatural, [according to the non-theist's belief] all interactions and reactions are products of the physical realm.” Thus paraphrased, however, we can now see that your step 4 is clearly invalid (normative and mathematical facts may interact, but it would be misleading or tendentious to say that they are simply “products of the physical realm”). I suspect you’ve simply confused yourself with an equivocation with the term “natural.” Here’s what you can legitimately say instead for step 4:
4. Since [according to the non-theist] there is only the non-supernatural, then, [on pain of inconsistency, the non-theist should affirm that] all interactions and reactions are non-supernatural.
Thus revised, step 4 would now be free from error. But how would you then proceed?
August 14th, 2011 | 9:20 am | #21
JGY,
Are you confusing the words natural and naturalism? Materialistic naturalists will allow no divine foot in the door. But without that divine foot, naturalism cannot justify induction. It cannot explain why nature is uniform. It cannot justify morality, beauty, altruism. It cannot resolve the tension between the unity and the diversity of the universe. It cannot explain why the universe happens to be so mathematically comprehensible to humans. Naturalism cannot explain the ‘why’ of why the universe is what it is, and cannot explain all the order that we observe.
Naturalism inevitably leads one to the conclusion that one is nothing more than a complex biochemical accident kicked up out of the indifferent pond scum of the universe.
But, and this is a big ‘but’, you can’t live that way. You can’t live as if you are a ‘nothing’, so one deludes himself by assigning meaning from within himself that he is something, when the universe tells him he is just a machine. You can show love, show your altruistic side by caring for starving children in other parts of the world, ascribe beauty to things around you, yet cannot account for these abstract, non-material entities from within the naturalistic system.
By denying God, you are denying the God you know, right, you rob yourself of any answers to who you truly are and why ‘you’ have any meaning.
August 14th, 2011 | 2:07 pm | #22
Steve, the issue is non-theism. Avoid confusing this with other philosophical views, unless you can show that non-theism, of it itself, entails them.
(Curiously, when evangelicals hear that someone lacks faith in God, it appears that they often begin attributing all kinds of other beliefs to that person. Perhaps this explains some of their surprising (some might say “kooky”) ideas about the dependency on God, or belief in God, for meaningfulness and satisfaction?)
August 14th, 2011 | 2:39 pm | #23
Could you define “non-theism” for us?
August 14th, 2011 | 3:03 pm | #24
So you’re only objection to my argument is one of semantics? By shifting natural to non-supernatural you’re essentially making a distinction without a difference.
Excluding belief in the non-supernatural what, categorically, are we left with?
“Steve, the issue is non-theism. Avoid confusing this with other philosophical views, unless you can show that non-theism, of it itself, entails them. ”
You’re using non-theism as vaguely as possible so you can become an essential moving target. Assuming tenants of material naturalism isn’t that large of an assumption to make about non-theists, especially considering you have yet to define the worldview you’re defending. If you’re going to argue that “there are some non-theists who don’t follow that worldview and some that are” than you’ve essentially ruined this debate in the regard that any argument made for or against non-theism can be wished away by you’re vague use of non-theism by saying “some might not have that view”.
Please define non-theism.
I’m also very curious about where you might believe that the source of truth lies? And also if there is an objective right and wrong? (from a non-theist point of view of course) Just curious.
August 14th, 2011 | 3:04 pm | #25
As I use the term, a non-theist is a person who is not a theist. (Similarly, a non-Baptist would be someone who isn’t a Baptist; a non-Muslim would be someone who isn’t a Muslim.) If “theism” refers to any system of belief that includes a belief in the existence of God, then “non-theism” would be any system of belief that does not include a belief in the existence of God.
August 14th, 2011 | 3:07 pm | #26
If by “one of semantics” you mean to include the fallacy of equivocation, or simply invalidity, then sure.
August 14th, 2011 | 6:09 pm | #27
Given that definition, JGY, this game is rigged:
There is no one who believes in this bare “non-theism” with no additional material included along with it. It is in fact no belief at all; it is just a minimalist description of what some persons do not believe.
How about you? Are you a naturalist? An atheist? I could meet your challenge easily from a real starting point like naturalism. Are you willing to own up to what you believe, or are you hiding in what you don’t?
August 14th, 2011 | 6:34 pm | #28
The game is certainly not rigged, given the dialectic in this thread, the questions I originally raised, and the assertions that others have made. Perhaps you just want to concede that the assertions that these others have made are extravagant and indefensible, which is probably true.
August 14th, 2011 | 9:46 pm | #29
JGY,
This whole discussion on “non-theism” has suffered from poor definition.
You introduced that term in comment 10 when you asked, “In what sense is God ‘replaced’ in every non-theistic system of thought?” That was a legitimately general usage of the term. As long as it was used in that general sense, it worked. When Livingston Dell switched to speaking of “a non-theist point of view,” however, it began to go in the wrong direction (sorry, Mr. Dell), for when one speaks of a point of view, one is no longer speaking generally. I think in #15 when he used the term “non-theist” he was really speaking of a naturalist’s or materialist’s point of view, or possibly an atheist’s point of view (which is almost the same as naturalism/materialism but not quite identical).
The ensuing discussion proceeded along lines of equivocation. Livingston Dell, Nikolai Volk, and Steve Drake were using “non-theism” as a synonym for atheistic materialism or naturalism, whereas you used it for anything but theism. Once it got some momentum on that equivocating path, it was bound to be an unproductive discussion.
I suggest we be more cautious with our terms. There is theism; there is non-theism, which could include everything from pantheism to panentheism to Norse paganism to atheistic materialism or naturalism and more; and then there is atheistic materialism or naturalism proper. (Somewhere in that non-theistic/atheistic mix comes the word secularism, which seems too vague to be useful for current purposes; it has better applications in social, political, and pragmatically-oriented discussions.)
I think this equivocation may have been what you were trying to get to in your post #20. Steve Drake tried to get to the same thing in his answer, #21. You encouraged him in #22 to avoid mixing non-theism with other philosophical issues, but there you made your own move toward fuzziness, mistakenly treating non-theism as if it were a philosophical issue of sufficient definition and clarity to be useful as such. Livingston Dell pointed this out in #24.
Taking all that into consideration, I believe the main questions in this thread (the comments only, not the original post) are these:
1. Is the theistic God necessary for purpose and meaning in human life?
2. Is there a way to experience meaning and purpose in life apart from belief in God?
To these I would add:
3. Are those two questions the same or are they different? In other words, is there any difference between (a) real meaning and purpose and (b) persons’ experience of meaning and purpose? Theists generally say that the experience is not identical with the reality (and vice versa), whereas many atheists have told me that the experience is all the reality there is and all that there need be.
Number 3 is the key question that makes all the difference. If we miss that one, we’re bound to equivocate on “meaning and purpose,” with theists generally meaning one thing by it and others meaning something else.
August 14th, 2011 | 11:17 pm | #30
I follow you up to a point, Mr. Gilson. The discussion has always been about whether and how God, or a belief in God, is necessary for meaning and satisfaction in a person’s life–although in hopes of explication, Steve and certain others made certain other extravagant claims.
Therefore my usage of “non-theist” and “non-theism” is perfectly appropriate, and its sense should have been clear from the context of discussion. I have never equivocated regarding the sense of the term (although sometimes I was generous, as it #20, where I allowed Mr. Livingstone to make an inference from non-theistic belief to non-supernatural belief). It seems to me obvious that claims about special versions of non-theistic belief (e.g., “materialism,” or “athiesm” in a certain sense) are inappropriate in the present context. If others think otherwise, they should provide an argument.
August 15th, 2011 | 6:57 am | #31
Extravagant claims? That depends. If Steve and the others were really thinking of atheistic materialism when they used the term “non-theism,” their claims were not extravagant, they were supportable claims applied to a wrongly labeled worldview. They have admittedly committed an error, but (if I understand correctly what’s been going on) it’s an error of labeling, not of extravagance.
There really is a difference, you see, between questions 1 and 2 in my previous comment, and I am prepared to argue (as are others here, I am sure) that the experience of meaning and purpose is false and illusory, unless there is also some further reality to meaning and purpose such as God supplies (on theism). That sort of further reality to meaning and purpose is unavailable without a transcendent source to provide it; therefore its existence would be impossible if atheistic materialism were true.
As for “non-theism” in any other form, that’s still too vague and general a term to be useful in this discussion. If you want to talk about it, I would suggest you specify more clearly what you are talking about. The question, “Does non-theism allow for real meaning and purpose in life?” is a non-question, for there is no such system of thought or life as “non-theism.”
August 15th, 2011 | 7:07 am | #32
If you really want to keep the discussion on a vague, general level, this might work:
Theists generally believe that my questions 1 and 2 are not the same questions, and that the experience of meaning and purpose is false and illusory unless there is some transcendent source who gives reality to meaning and purpose. Therefore to keep the discussion on a very general level, we could speak of transcendence vs. non-transcendence.
I used the pronoun “who” somewhat guardedly there. I believe this transcendence must be personal, not impersonal: a God, in other words, not a force. But I’m not going to worry about arguing that point until we hear back from you.
August 15th, 2011 | 2:22 pm | #33
Mr. Gilson, you are wise to abandon the idea that a belief in God is necessary for the experience of meaning/satisfaction in a person’s life. The folks pursuing this idea seem to be highly confused.
The claim that you would be willing to defend is far less relevant to the present thread. And, although it is still quite dubious, we should probably save it for another venue. Finally, you seem to have confused “vague” with “abstract”/”general”/”non-particular”. “Non-theistic” is only vague if “theistic” is vague. In the present discussion, the vagueness of these terms certainly isn’t the problem.
August 15th, 2011 | 3:18 pm | #34
You don’t have to be thinking of an Ivan Ilyich here, Blake.
While it’s true that Ivan Ilyich is also a story about a man facing death with regret, if it is in any way related to the point I was making, I fail to see it.
The reference was to Ikiru, because the situation you describe is the situation Ikiru faced: the problem of someone who has not yet confronted the problem.
It is possible to live like a child, to enjoy the ‘now’, the moment, without knowing or caring where it comes from, without thinking about the past or the future, but living totally in this moment. The fact that it ends with your death is not crucial because your death seems very remote. Your death is not real. You know, intellectually, that all lives end, but it’s a distant knowledge that doesn’t actually touch the life you’re actually living.
The problem is, this is a state of immaturity, and in the film Ikiru it is the tragedy of this film that the man has managed to live his whole life without ever really thinking about the things one needs to think about to become mature, to enjoy a rich life.
Enjoying the nice things you’ve got in front of you is not a rich life. It is a rich childhood – maybe even an extended childhood. That pleasurable ‘now’ feeling I describe is only possible when various threats (including threatening ideas) are kept at bay.
But most people experience a turning-point somewhere, after which they can no longer live unthinkingly. Mortality and dangers, randomness and unanswered questions, impossibilities and things that don’t make sense either demand answers – or lead to sense of despair. On a societal scale as well as a personal one – humanism “the Enlightenment” promised us Utopia and instead delivered “Waiting For Godot” – that is how it all ends: you must build a narrative capable of explaining things well enough that you can live, or else you can’t go on to become a completed grown-up human being and live a full, purposeful life. You need a religion – and if “The Enlightenment” counts as your religion, whether you call it Humanism and pretend it’s not a religion or you admit it is a religion and call it Unitarian Universalism, either way, it’s a religion with some HUGE whopping unanswered questions – for all that its adherents have embraced denial and ignoring, minimizing and justifying as a way around its contradictions in the past, today even these are not working: the religion itself is realizing it is in a theater waiting for Godot, and all that we need to do is realize that Godot isn’t ever going to show up, and then we’ll see what happens next.
Humanists say Christianity is not a “good” religion – that is, humanists do not like the quality of Christianity’s answers – but what humanists do not yet recognize is that Christianity, unlike humanism, is mature and complete religion – that is, a religion capable of addressing all parts of life, all moments, and capable of addressing all questions; it does not have to hide from what it can’t explain.
It is hard to see how there can be such a thing as “non-theism” without meaning humanism – by which I mean the set of beliefs that derive from (and descend from) The Enlightenment. Humanists like to play games, for instance trying to make arguments based on making the other fellow prove a negative, but I can’t imagine any way of being non-theist other than by embracing the core assumptions of humanism. I am curious: is there a way of conceiving reality in a “non-theist” way, apart from the doctrines, beliefs, and teachings of the Enlightenment?
August 15th, 2011 | 4:04 pm | #35
JGY,
I’m not “abandoning” the idea that a belief in God is necessary for the experience of meaning/satisfaction. Based on both Scripture and experience, I never thought it was necessary.
I do believe, as I have said, that God’s reality is necessary for the experience of meaning and purpose to be anything more than a passing illusion. Now you inform us all that that is irrelevant to the present thread. I don’t know if other participants on this thread will agree with you, but I trust you will not rule them in violation if they decide it’s worth pursuing.
I don’t think that what you consider to be their confusion is what you think it is; with just a tweaking of terminology, they would actually be on exactly the right track. As far as I’m concerned, though, I’ve said what I want to say on this post, unless something else of interest picks up from here.
Pardon me for confusing “vague and general” with “general/non-particular.” I can’t imagine why you thought “abstract” fit the context, but I acknowledge the error otherwise. So wrong of me to have done that. I repent.
August 15th, 2011 | 6:17 pm | #36
Mr. Gilson, as a parting comment, let me constructively suggest something that I have been observing as both a reader and a participant. As a tendency, you seem to approach critical conversation as a kind of competitive sport (and often as a sort of team sport), and that, in doing so, your ego, and possibly your goals, sometimes appear to occlude your mind, or at least your thoughtfulness and understanding.
It may be that the “team sport” pattern I see in your disposition arises from your role (self-styled or otherwise) as an apologist for conservative evangelical thought. Perhaps it is exacerbated by some feeling that you have pastoral responsibility over certain of the other believers here. Perhaps the ego element stems from the pressures of self-marketing on the internet. Or, more piously, you may be feeling that this is all truly a matter of “keeping the faith,” and that the team you play for is the very team of God. I don’t know.
What can confidently suggest, however, is a better strategy. It might help for you to think of yourself as a student. As a student, you have a great deal to learn from your critics, and you can view this as a good thing. For a student, getting corrected is a win, not a defeat.
Whether or not you can hear this advice, I do wish the best for you.
August 15th, 2011 | 10:17 pm | #37
Thank you for that input, JGY. It was speculative. Some of it was probably accurate. I turned acerbic in my last comment, to be sure. Whether my tone was appropriate or not, I am too close to the situation right now to judge. I’m open to others’ opinions on that.
You seem to think my self-styled role here may have occluded my mind. I remain open to your showing me specifically where that is the case.
I’m not sure what you meant by “pastoral responsibility” in this context. I certainly do see myself as a Christian apologist, and without apology.
I do not apologize either for supporting other commenters here. I have (as I’m sure you noticed) criticized their terminology, but I retained a positive view nevertheless, in the sense that I think what they were trying to say made sense, even if they did not communicate it in the best terms. The reason I can have that optimism is because I have had similar conversations with some of them; and because I know they arguments they were working toward, and they are generally good arguments.
As a parting comment of my own, I encourage you to re-read your own writings here and see whether some of the same things you have said of me are also true for you.
August 16th, 2011 | 6:25 pm | #38
JGY: “Mr. Gilson, as a parting comment, let me constructively suggest something that I have been observing as both a reader and a participant. As a tendency, you seem to approach critical conversation as a kind of competitive sport (and often as a sort of team sport), and that, in doing so, your ego, and possibly your goals, sometimes appear to occlude your mind, or at least your thoughtfulness and understanding.”
Tom Gilson: “I turned acerbic in my last comment, to be sure. Whether my tone was appropriate or not, I am too close to the situation right now to judge. I’m open to others’ opinions on that.”
FWIW, I’d echo JGY’s observation: “[Y]our ego, and possibly your goals, sometimes appear to occlude your mind, or at least your thoughtfulness and understanding.”
August 16th, 2011 | 6:29 pm | #39
Thank you, TUAD. I’m not surprised to hear you think that, based on recent interactions elsewhere.
August 16th, 2011 | 10:13 pm | #40
“Thank you, TUAD.”
You’re welcome, Tom. It’s not surprising that JGY offered his constructive suggestion given your recent interactions elsewhere.
August 17th, 2011 | 8:25 am | #41
Like JGY, you seem to think something about my goals or ego may have occluded my mind. I’m open to learning, and as I told JGY you’re welcome to show me specifically where you see that.
August 17th, 2011 | 8:58 am | #42
David,
I wonder also if ‘Church decline across the pond’ doesn’t have something to do with the nearly complete acceptance of Darwinian evolution by most European churches. The quotes from Hendrikse seem almost identical to what Richard Dawkins has been saying most of his life. Darwin’s ideas have infiltrated the Church since his publication in 1859 of On the Origin of Species, and the takeover is almost complete.
We’re now seeing the same thing on this side of the pond as noted in this link by editor in chief Marvin Olasky of World magazine where he describes World’s books of the year and the rapidly growing promotion of theistic-, or rather deistic-evolution.
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/18207
(You have to be an online subscriber to see the full article.)
The rise of theistic-, or rather deistic-evolutionary organizations like BioLogos and their promotion of evolution as God’s method of creation, does not portend well for us either.
August 17th, 2011 | 10:23 am | #43
“editor in chief Marvin Olasky of World magazine where he describes World’s books of the year and the rapidly growing promotion of theistic-, or rather deistic-evolution.
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/18207“
Thanks Steve Drake for linking to this excellent article!
Here’s one of the parts that’s particularly acute:
“[Theistic Evolution] Opponents note that it is extraordinarily hard and painful for scientists who are Christian to stand up against the conventional wisdom.”
This is very telling. ***Courage*** is what’s needed when things are “extraordinarily hard and painful” for Christians who find it difficult “to stand up against the conventional wisdom.”
The primary need for these Christians and for much of the Church is courage to inform the world of the view that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. A Christian worldview that is courageous “to stand up against the conventional wisdom” when things are “extraordinarily hard and painful” is what the Church primarily needs. And this surely accounts for a significant reason why there is a “Church decline across the pond.”
August 17th, 2011 | 8:27 pm | #44
Steve Drake, thank you for offering your view on Darwinism’s impact on the churches. I myself am agnostic on the historicity of macro-evolution, especially the possibility of human descent from lower primates. Those with considerably more expertise on the matter than I make persuasive arguments in its favour based on apparently good evidence. I myself do not feel competent to evaluate these — at least enough to judge whether human beings did indeed have common ancestors with modern apes.
Where I would part ways with theistic/deistic evolutionists is in the assumption that the darwinian mechanism of natural selection (DNS) is an all-sufficient explanation for the sheer diversity of created life. Its explanatory power breaks down further when it comes to explaining the complexity of human culture, whereby human beings adapt their environments to themselves rather than the other way round.
For many unbelieving scientists DNS becomes a kind of god-substitute. If we cannot explain something any other way, we appeal to the evolutionary process, which is thought to settle the matter. Some speak of Christians using a “god of the gaps” argument, but one of my Redeemer University colleagues has aptly described this method of argumentation as “Darwin of the gaps.” DNS ends up being used to fill the gaps in our current knowledge.
In short, no, I doubt that a mere belief in the possibility of macro-evolution is enough to decimate the churches in the Netherlands or elsewhere. But where DNS is accepted as an ur-explanation for everything, then, yes indeed, the faith of the gospel has been supplanted by a competing account of reality.
August 18th, 2011 | 5:03 am | #45
Steve,
We have discussed evolution on numerous occasions, and we were unable to overcome what was clearly an impasse. You believe that the theory of evolution, (which is accepted by nearly every biologist, atheistic or theistic, I might add) is wholly incompatible with Christian faith. I totally disagree, obviously, but I respect your intelligent assessment of it. But Bio Logos is a Theistic organization. It is not, and I repeat, not a Deistic one, if one accepts the definition of “deistic” as the view that the universe has a creator, who essentially stays out of his creation, doesn’t answer prayers, or intervene in other ways.
Bio Logos firmly advocates belief in a God who is involved with His creation. It originated, and is run, after all, by the devout evangelical Christian, medical doctor, and geneticist, Francis Collins.
August 18th, 2011 | 10:03 am | #46
David, you wrote:
May I only pique your interest to the devastation of the human-ape link by saying you may find interesting the book by Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention, Baker Books, 1992, 2004.
August 18th, 2011 | 10:38 am | #47
One of the main reasons Christianity is not taken as seriously as it should, is the stubborn refusal, of those who should know better, to accept the legitimacy of evolution. Quite frankly, there’s no excuse for educated people to deny it. And the fact that we continue to see educated individuals espouse the notion that evolution is not supported by vast amounts of empirical evidence, is irresponsible.
August 18th, 2011 | 10:55 am | #48
Bret, what is your evidence of this being the issue across the pond? And do you have evidence that believing in evolution strengthens the faith in the U.S.? It appears otherwise to me.
Note: there are multiple definitions for evolution. Everyone believes in evolution in the sense of change over time, and I think everyone also believes in evolution in the micro sense such as is exhibited in antibiotic resistance. The term may also be used in reference to common descent from a universal ancestor. Some, but not all, would add that “evolution” means universal common descent by means of unguided, undirected random variation with natural selection. So my question above might have been premature, but I’ll leave it there anyway while I ask, which “evolution” are you talking about?
August 18th, 2011 | 11:22 am | #49
Hi Tom, it’s good to talk with you, again. I think that the conflict between evolution and Christianity is a needless one. I think that part of the problem is, some are listening to Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne too much, and assuming that they’re views are accurate.
Certainly, you’re right that we must distinguish between different types of evolution. And certainly every informed person accepts microevolution, in the form of antibiotic resistence (as you mention) and, finch beak modification, and the changing of moth colors, to give some more examples. And there are those Theists who accept decent from a common ancestor, but reject other aspects of evolutionary theory (the biochemist Michael Behe, accepts common decent, even though he argues for intelligent design).
Most biologists do accept that evolution, meaning that natural selection is responsible for the diversity of life forms, whether they’re atheistic, or theistic. That is, mutations of genetic material, in organisms, are either favorable to the organism’s survival or not. If not, it dies out, if it’s conducive to its survival, then it will be passed on to its offspring. This is the foundation of modern biology. But it seems to be where some fellow Theists have trouble. It doesn’t have to be this way. One can believe that God used the natural selection process, to create all life.
The natural selection process is the core of biology. One could extrapolate from this, as Dawkins and Coyne confidently do, that this implies there’s no God. Or, one could argue, (as I do, and others) that God created the conditions so that life arose in this way, for His own reasons.
August 18th, 2011 | 12:08 pm | #50
For those interested, Tim Ward, vicar of Holy Trinity Church Hinckley, and author of the book: Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God has a wonderful account of his trip down the Grand Canyon with Canyon Ministries and Answers in Genesis during the ‘Christian Leaders Trip 2011′ at:
http://www.holytrinityhinckley.org.uk/Media/2011/mp3/Genesisandcreation.mp3
The church website is:
http://www.holytrinityhinckley.org.uk/index.html
Dr. Jim Hamilton describes his account of the same trip at:
http://jimhamilton.info/2011/07/19/the-grand-canyon-with-canyon-ministries-and-answers-in-genesis/
August 18th, 2011 | 12:18 pm | #51
I’m going to see if I understand you correctly then, Bret, putting together your last two comments. This is tentative, not meant to put words in your mouth or anything; please let us know if this gets close to your intent. I think you believe that one of the main reasons Christianity is not taken as seriously as it should be is the stubborn refusal, on the part of those who should know better, to accept the legitimacy of natural selection acting upon genetic variation (either random or God-directed in some fashion) as the process by which all species have come to be.
Is that approximately right? And do you see this as a main driver for church decline “across the pond”? Or is it just a minor contributor?
August 18th, 2011 | 12:25 pm | #52
Joe,
Is there a reason my post#50 shows up under this thread, ‘Church Decline Across the Pond’, but doesn’t show up on the ‘Recent Comments’ column on the side?
August 18th, 2011 | 12:55 pm | #53
Tom: I reject Steve’s assertion that, the acceptance of Darwinian evolution is a factor in the decline of belief in europe, if I understood him correctly. I don’t see how the acceptance of a theory of such scientific persuasiveness would contribute, or cause people to stop believing. If he has evidence to support this, by all means, he should bring it forward.
August 18th, 2011 | 1:08 pm | #54
My intent is not to seem harsh. I have enjoyed talking with Steve, Tom, and others here. I hope, Steve, if you see this, that we can continue to have fruitful conversations in the future. You seem like a decent, kind person. But you have somehow been persuaded to keep pushing this view that belief in evolution is the enemy of Christianity. Its not. Truth cannot contradict truth. I know you believe that evolution is false. But I say this, as respectfully as I can, you’re just wrong. And you asserted that BioLogos is a deist organization. It’s not. It’s a Christian one.
August 18th, 2011 | 1:30 pm | #55
Bret,
My reference was to the editor in chief of World magazine, Marvin Olasky, and his inference that theistic evolution is really deistic evolution, and yes, I carried that forward to the BioLogos organization’s penultimate statement that evolution is God’s method of creation. I await your answers though to Tom’s questions in #48 and #51 above.
August 18th, 2011 | 1:47 pm | #56
Steve, what do you base your view that BioLogos is deistic?
You seem to make the claim that in europe, the decline in belief in Christianity, is due, at least in part, to the belief in evolution. How do you know this?
I’m curious about something. Would you forgive me, for asking a question that may not at this time seem germane to our discussion? What is your relationship to Tom Gilson? (aside from being a fellow contributor). You see, I’m wondering something, and I’m trying to determine if my speculation is correct. Thanks.
August 18th, 2011 | 1:54 pm | #57
Bret,
My relationship to Tom Gilson is that he is my brother. My brother through adoption as sons and heirs in the redemptive grace of Christ our Savior. Does that answer your question?
August 18th, 2011 | 2:00 pm | #58
Steve, perhaps you can provide some evidence for your assertion that evolution has contributed to decline in Christian belief?
August 18th, 2011 | 2:02 pm | #59
Steve, do you accept that those who fully believe in evolution can also be fully Christian?
August 18th, 2011 | 2:09 pm | #60
Bret,
I want to see you answer Tom’s question first.
August 18th, 2011 | 2:18 pm | #61
I’m not here to play games with you, Steve, in all frankness. Either you believe that those who believe fully in evolution can also be fully Christian, or you don’t. Perhaps you could answer my questions?
August 18th, 2011 | 2:20 pm | #62
By the way, I never claimed that evolution was an issue across the pond: you did. You claimed that belief in evolution contributed to Christianity’s decline. What evidence do you have for this? If you would prefer not to answer, that’s ok. I understand.
August 18th, 2011 | 2:24 pm | #63
Bret,
I’m not here to play games with you either, but your avoidance of Tom’s questions in #48 and #51 above speaks volumes to why you wish to persue this issue about Tom and my relationship. I wish to hear you respond to Tom’s questions as they are of necessity my own.
August 18th, 2011 | 2:30 pm | #64
I understand that you don’t wish to answer, that’s ok. Thanks for your time, Steve/Tom ;-)
August 18th, 2011 | 3:04 pm | #65
Steve, I’ll try one more time: do you believe that one can be a full believer in evolution, and fully Christian? The fact that you have avoided answering, inclines me to believe that you don’t. Is this wrong? I do believe that those, yourself included, who don’t believe in evolution are fully Christian. You’re just wrong on evolution. If you don’t believe that those who are believers in evolution can also be fully Christian, then, sadly, it speaks loudly for your lack of respect for me, and others.
Considering the good conversations we’ve had in the past, this causes me saddness. And may necessitate me not talking with you in the future.
August 18th, 2011 | 3:26 pm | #66
Tom,
We’ve been outed. We’re blood, brother. Tell me again when the next family reunion is?
Bret,
Do you wish me to pronounce you Christian because you believe in evolution? Only God can do that, my friend. We obviously have serious disagreement on this issue, but I am not one to pronounce you not saved by the grace of God because you believe in evolution. So, let’s stop the caricaturization and deal with the issue itself. I’m still interested in hearing your reply to Tom’s questions in #48 and #51.
August 18th, 2011 | 3:35 pm | #67
Steve, I don’t need you to tell me I’m Christian, for me to know I’m Christian. I was curious what your view on it was. I did deal with the issue. I never claimed, as I said before, that belief in evolution affected what happened in europe. You did that. I did claim that, Christianity looses credibility when it has adherents who insists evolution by natural selection didn’t happen. And, I’ll add credibility is lost when you and others claim that the earth is only 6 to 10,000 years old. With all due respect, you cannot really believe that, can you?
Now, what gives you the intellectual right to claim that belief in evolution has contributed to the decline of Christian belief in europe?
August 18th, 2011 | 3:41 pm | #68
Bret Lythgoe: “One of the main reasons Christianity is not taken as seriously as it should, is the stubborn refusal, of those who should know better, to accept the legitimacy of evolution. Quite frankly, there’s no excuse for educated people to deny it.”
Bret, do you think Christians who are opposed to neo-Darwinian macro-evolution are anti-intellectual?
And that this anti-intellectualism by Christians (as evidenced by significant opposition to theistic/deistic macro-evolution) is a big problem for the Church in general when engaging the broader culture of non-Christians?
August 18th, 2011 | 3:43 pm | #69
Let me add this: I believe that your espousing of a 6 to 10,000 year old earth, and a rejection of evolution, is not just intellectually devoid of merit, but intellectually irresponsible. The evidence is clear for both notions, and for you to reject it, and then imply that those who accept these well established scientific views, may not really be Christian, is, frankly, shameful.
August 18th, 2011 | 3:44 pm | #70
TUAD: I do.
August 18th, 2011 | 3:45 pm | #71
Correction. The last paragraph above is amended to:
If so, is this anti-intellectualism by Christians (as evidenced by significant opposition to theistic/deistic macro-evolution) a big problem for the Church in general when the Church is engaging the broader culture (of non-Christians)?
August 18th, 2011 | 3:52 pm | #72
o “Bret, do you think Christians who are opposed to neo-Darwinian macro-evolution are anti-intellectual?”
o “And that this anti-intellectualism by Christians (as evidenced by significant opposition to theistic/deistic macro-evolution) is a big problem for the Church in general when engaging the broader culture of non-Christians?”
Bret: “TUAD: I do.”
Wow, that was fast! Thanks for the quick response.
Further inquiry, would you make the same guess that I do, that a large number of non-Christians regard the Church (in general) as being anti-intellectual because there are so many Christians who reject neo-Darwinian macro-evolution?
August 18th, 2011 | 4:00 pm | #73
TUAD: I believe so. All of modern biology rests on evolutionary theory. It’s one thing for those who do not understand evolution, and who acquire what little they do know about it, from Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, who, I would point out, are just as intellectually irresponsible, for claiming evolutionary theory is incompatible with Christianity as those on the other side, to dismiss evolution. But those who should know better, who have presumably been educated, in these areas to assert evolution is false, is a scandal.
It’s a scandal, because, in a nutshell, all of modern biology relies on the soundness of evolutionary theory. If Steve Drake had his way, all Christians would deny evolution, making Christians, and by implication, Christianity itself, an intellectual laughing stock. Christianity is intellectually defendable, but this depends on its acceptance of modern biology, modern geology (which rests on a foundation of belief in a four billion year old earth), and modern cosmology, which depends on the well established evidence that the universe is 15 to 20 billion years old.
August 18th, 2011 | 4:07 pm | #74
TUAD: there’s absolutely no reason why Christianity should have a reputation, among some, as “anti-intellectual.” It’s entirely compatable with all the findings of empirical science. This anti-intellectualism is, to a large extent, self inflicted, by denying the evidence for an old earth, and evolution by natural selection. I would like to commend BioLogos for courageously showing how science and Christianity are completely compatable. This organization is being hounded by the antievolutionists, such as Steve Drake, and the atheists such as Jerry Coyne.
August 18th, 2011 | 4:42 pm | #75
Bret, you say,
Really? What was this?
If that isn’t claiming it’s an issue, I don’t know what is; and though you didn’t specifically say “across the pond,” you raised it in that context.
So then what is your evidence?
Next question:
Sure! Even though we’ve never met and we have no relationship outside of blogging (since you asked), I can speak confidently for him. The answer is yes, Steve and I would both agree with you: those who fully believe in evolution can be fully Christian, depending on which definition of evolution you have in mind.
That is, if you mean change over time or micro-evolution, we would both see that as fully consistent with Christian belief. But if you mean unguided, undirected evolution as the source of all species, both of us would say that’s unbiblical and inconsistent with Christian belief. (I suppose someone could still be a Christian and hold inconsistent beliefs, but I don’t think that was what you were asking about.)
If you don’t specify what you mean by the question, it’s hard to give a clear answer. If you treat evolution as if it means just one thing, you’re not asking the question clearly enough. I’m surprised you kept pressing him under those terms.
August 18th, 2011 | 5:02 pm | #76
Tom,
My point, which I should have made more clear, is that, evolution is not the cause, or the contributor to the decline of Christian belief in europe. I don’t know what is causing this decline, but unless someone (I was trying to ask Steve, for this evidence) can provide some evidence that evolution has caused/contributed to this decline, I don’t believe it.
I did claim, and I stand by it, that since evolution, and old earth, are theories that provide the foundations for modern biology and modern geology respectively, to deny these theories, causes, or at least contributes to, Christianity not being considered intellectually respectable, which is tragic, since this (the view that Christianity is intellectually without merit/respect) view is false, and creates needless problems for Christianity.
Thanks for acknowledging that one can be Christian and believe in evolution (and, of course you’re right that God ultimately controls it, and allows it to come into being, is the only consistent view for an evolutionist/Christian to possess).
I did specify that, evolution is by natural selection. Meaning those random mutations in genes that are productive to the organism’s survival, get passed on, those that aren’t, result in death. Of course God created the natural selection process, which is distinct from the notion that He gets directly involved in the mutation process, which I don’t believe.
I’m glad to hear to hear that you can speak so confidently for Steve’s belief that those who believe in evolution and Christianity, can be “Christian”, I accept that. I was puzzled why he didn’t answer that directly, instead saying, to paraphrase him, only God knows. Although true, my question was what he, Steve thought.
August 18th, 2011 | 5:07 pm | #77
In fairness, Steve did say that he’s not one to pronounce me not saved by the grace of God, because I believe in evolution. (to paraphrase him).
August 18th, 2011 | 5:16 pm | #78
I would like to apologize for my #69 comments. I said that it was “shameful” for Steve to imply that those who do believe in evolution and Christianity may not really be Christian. This was based on a not as careful reading of his #66 comments, as I should have. Although he doesn’t explicitly say that one can be a believer in evolution, and be a Christian, and I inferred from this lack of explicitness, that Steve was implying that he didn’t really think one could be, upon reading this again, I realized that my reading was uncharitable. I’m sorry for that. I’ve had good conversations with Steve in the past, and I guess I felt a little hurt, by how the conversation was going, and didn’t read things as objectively as I should have.
August 18th, 2011 | 5:22 pm | #79
“would you make the same guess that I do, that a large number of non-Christians regard the Church (in general) as being anti-intellectual because there are so many Christians who reject neo-Darwinian macro-evolution?”
Bret: “TUAD: I believe so.”
Thanks again for a prompt response.
I’d like to ask you another question based on your statement here:
Would you say, given the assumption that there’s a wide-scale perception that the Church is anti-intellectual, that the Church and Christians need an informed worldview, and that a core essential part of an informed worldview is “acceptance of modern biology, modern geology (which rests on a foundation of belief in a four billion year old earth), and modern cosmology, which depends on the well established evidence that the universe is 15 to 20 billion years old”?
And according to your argument or reasoning, should the Church and many, many Christians make the transition to such an informed worldview, then Christianity would no longer be regarded and perceived as an “intellectual laughing stock.” Is that right? And the logical outcome of your argument/reasoning is that for some non-Christians, this widescale and individual perception that Christianity is an “intellectual laughingstock” is a barrier to them coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, is that right?
August 18th, 2011 | 5:45 pm | #80
TUAD: my point is that, evolution, the old earth/universe views are, barring some highly rare alteration in our scientific worldview, since the evidence is so strong, true. As true as Christianity is. Both are aspects of God’s reality.
I think that it can indeed be a barrier. People will have to reject the plethora of evidence in favor of evolution, old earth, if it becomes normative for a Christian to deny these theories. This will create intellectual disorder, in my view, in the minds of those who are forced to choose one or the other. This is not about being “accepted” by the intellectual world. It’s about having a logically and empirically coherent understanding of how science and Christianity can both fit together.
August 18th, 2011 | 5:55 pm | #81
“It’s about having a logically and empirically coherent understanding of how science and Christianity can both fit together.”
Hi Bret, would you say that Christians who oppose theistic/deistic evolution do not have a logical and empirically coherent understanding of how science and Christianity can both fit together?
August 18th, 2011 | 6:18 pm | #82
TUAD: No, I wouldn’t. I know that that seems inconsistent, but I know of people who are very intelligent, educated people, who do deny evolution, and seem to have a logical and empirically coherent view of how science and Christianity can fit together.
So, although, in principle, it seems to me that one must accept evolution/old earth, to have a coherent view of how science can fit together with Christianity, in practice, that’s adifferent matter. Some, such as Michael Behe, the attorney (and, ironically enough, the first book I read on evolution, was REASON IN THE BALANCE) Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, among others have a logically and empirically coherent “fitting” if you will, between science and Christianity. I just think, as smart and respectable as they are, they’re wrong on evolution.
I find it extremely difficult to see how it can be done, easily, though.
August 19th, 2011 | 2:09 am | #83
“Of course God created the natural selection process, which is distinct from the notion that He gets directly involved in the mutation process, which I don’t believe.”
Bret, I know I’m a little late into the conversation but I’m curious. If you don’t believe that God was directly involved in the mutation process, and the mutation functions of natural selection created humans, do you deny the belief that God was directly involved in the creation of humans?
August 19th, 2011 | 2:10 am | #84
Sorry, I made an error with the italic code.
August 19th, 2011 | 4:05 am | #85
Livingston,
You ask a very good question. It clearly seems to be the case that, if God is not directly involved in the mutation process, and the mutation process is what “created” humans, then God is not directly involved in the creation of humans. It seems as if the logic here is clear.
One could argue, as atheistic biologists such as Jerry Coyne seem to do that, the random mutation process indicates that, no teleology is involved here, in the sense of some supernatural entity “directing” the mutations. Humans, or any other biological organism, arose as a result of a purely contingent process, that wasn’t “directed.” Humans may not have come into being. Humans arose, a result of the interaction of a contingent environment, in conjunction with genes mutating, due to purely physical or natural causes; not because of the intervention of a supernatural entity, that has a “mind” that has some preplanned “idea” of what organisms will arise.
This seems like evolution, by natural selection (random, or more precisely, purely physical causes of gene mutation, that just happen to either be conducive to the organism that possesses these genes survival, or not), is entirely incompatible with Christian belief. After all, the Christian God “already” knows what will happens and has specific plans for the universe, particularly humans, that He created.
Here’s where Francis Collins, founder (although he did resign, to head the National Institute of Health, but he shouldn’t have) of BioLogos, has some important insights. He points out, rightly, (this is part of the Christian understanding, for most Christians, I would add, of the ontology of God’s relation to His creation, and what He is “composed” of) that God is outside of space and Time, is the creator of space and time. He “already” knows what will happen, since He is not confined spatiotemporally. He has created the natural selection process, and is not making tinkering “adjustments” to the genes, by mutating them, in response to certain environmental conditions. He doesn’t “micro mange” the biology of organisms, to paraphrase the Jesuit Scholar Edward Oaks, S.J.
God chose the natural selection process, he knows humans, will ultimately arise, indeed has planned for this, but does not come in and “change” the genes or any other biological structure, to make it more adaptable, or the corollary, of being less adaptable. He made it “random” within certain constraints. That is, God already decided and knows (since He’s omnipotent, and omniscient, as well as non spatial, and non temporal) how the world will come to be, in every detail, and has decided to make certain aspects of it random, or at least appear that way to us.
This is my summary, of how I’ve interpreted Francis Collins position, and the BioLogos position, generally. If anyone can find errors here, please correct me. I agree with this view, at least in general. It seems to do justice to the Christian understanding of God, and the findings of evolutionary biology.
Some, such as Coyne, think it’s wrong to argue that humans were “meant to be here”, as I pointed out above. But, this is not dictated by the evolutionary biology, this is an atheistic interpretation of the biology. That is, both Collins and Coyne accept the findings of evolutionary biology, the empirical data; where they part company, and where I side with Collins, is in the philosophical interpretation of this data, especially in light of the Christian Tradition. One could, reasonably, make either the atheistic extrapolation that, no God is needed, and humans were never meant to be; OR, one could extrapolate, from the same empirical data, and in light of the arguments of the Christian Tradition, as well as other philosophical arguments, that the Christian worldview makes better sense.
August 19th, 2011 | 4:07 am | #86
I think I made an error with the italic code, as well! Sorry!
August 19th, 2011 | 4:41 am | #87
Bret,
You are correct in identifying that natural selection is a process, not a creator in of itself. I believe natural selection is good science (though I’m not convinced it has to be all sheer random mutation), as Collins does. Unfortunately, not many understand it as Collins does.
Where people like Richard Dawkins go wrong, however, is in making natural selection a sort of god. Dawkins acts as if natural selection is a thinking entity in of itself, a perfect explanation for why everything is the way it is on earth. Dawkins refuses to believe in an omnipotent creator, but believes in a magical, seemingly transcendant process that has made all of the interconnectivity on earth possibly by sheer, random chance. In my view, if you’re going to believe that, you might as well believe in some kind of god, even if it isn’t an Abrahamic one.
August 19th, 2011 | 5:23 am | #88
Nikolai,
You make a good point. Dawkins seems to have this faith in natural selection (although I’m sure he wouldn’t call it faith) that can reasonably be called religious. He claims that his atheism is more reasonable than Christianity (or any other form of Theism), but has no coherent answer for how the universe sprang into existence, and how/why the earth was so favorable for the evolutionary process to take place.
August 19th, 2011 | 3:38 pm | #89
Bret,
Just to be clear, I do agree with evolution and agree that natural selection has scientific validity. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that denial of evolution is anti-intellectual, but that’s my own thoughts. To me it depends on what the reason for the denial of evolution is. I’ve heard pretty convincing arguments and some not so convincing arguments. I think it is important to point out that there are also many who believe in evolution but also know very little about natural selection or evolution as a whole, but simply believe it to be true simply because it’s commonly accepted. I think that there are very valid challenges to evolution (though I largely disagree with them), it is after all a theory, but I think that these challenges can add to the validity of evolution if they can be overcome.
That’s just my personal insight on the topic. Back to my question:
Bret you said “He has created the natural selection process, and is not making tinkering “adjustments” to the genes, by mutating them, in response to certain environmental conditions.”
You later go on to affirm that God is omniscient and knows that humans will arise from the natural selection process. This I agree with, however I still feel that God had more involvement with the creation of people than Collins gives credit for.
First a question than an observation.
1. When God created or set forth the natural selection process, do you believe that he intended for humans to come into existence, or do you believe that God simple created the process with no control over the outcome. Would God have created the natural selection process if he knew that it would not create humans?
2. Is it possible, that even though God did not “change” specific genes to insure the creation of humans, that God purposely created natural selection in such a way that it would surely create people? In other words, do you believe that natural selection is truly random or do you believe that natural selection is, in a way, rigged from the beginning to insure the creation of humans?
This isn’t necessarily what I believe, I’m not really sure what my thoughts are, I just wanted some insight from your point of view. This is all mostly speculation anyway.
August 20th, 2011 | 7:47 am | #90
Livingston,
Thanks for your good insights, and questions. Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, He would have to choose to not have control over the evolutionary process. It’s possible that He, for His own reason, or reasons, chose to relinquish control over what organisms arose, in the evolutionary process.
I don’t believe this. I’m unsure where Collins is on this,(I suspect that he believes that God intended for human all along) but I believe that God intended for humans to emerge from the evolutionary process. Otherwise, one would have to conclude that God had no plan in mind for humanity. Since God is omniscient, and omnipotent, He would have to know and have power over His creation, ultimately. Now, He may have chosen to relinquish His power, by giving it to natural selection, if you will. But He wouldn’t have to do so.
God could have chosen to create any way He wanted. It’s just happens to be, that, for His own reasons, the natural selection way, is what He chose. I think that He knew/knows exactly what creatures will arise, and that humans are the ultimate of biological entities. This in no way implies that other creatures are of little importance. They may be just as important as us, in terms of their worth to God (and I’m inclined to think so), but they don’t have the cognitive capacity to engage in worship, which makes humans the “ultimate” in creation.
To shift gears, a little bit. The atheistic evolutionist, as I pointed out in earlier comments, accepts the same empirical data, and deductive reasoning that supports evolutionary theory, as the theistic evolutionist. The latter, I believe, has a better philosophical foundation. Clearly the atheist must conclude that, the conditions, by pure chance, just happened to be right, for complex molecules, such as DNA to arise, and that their mutations, just happened to work out to produce complex organisms. But the theist, is able to argue that, God put things in the right place, for natural selection to occur. In other words, its not possible for things to cause themselves. The atheist must assume that, molecules, by pure randomness, assembled themselves, ultimately, into conscious beings. The theist, on the other hand, can plausibly say, yes, there’s randomness, in the mutations of genetic material, but there’s hidden order behind it, namely, God.
August 20th, 2011 | 10:16 am | #91
Livingston, Bret,
I think you both may be confused about the role of natural selection. Both sides claim the reality of this force of nature. It was accepted by creationists before Darwin, and by creationist scientists today, by the way.
Natural selection cannot create anything new. It removes genes from a population, and can help it adapt to it’s environment, but the adaptations are not changes in the right direction to drive particles-to-people evolution. You can throw God in the mix, and claim that He somehow overrides this culliing effect, this only selecting from what is available effect, to bring man to the fore, but to do so begs a correct definition of the term itself.
It works only by removing genes (of the unfit) from the population and supplies no new genetic information content. Therefore, it is in the opposite direction required for particles-to-people evolution, which requires the generation of new information.
August 20th, 2011 | 10:48 am | #92
Steve and I have some differences of opinion on this topic, but he’s exactly right here. Natural selection is among the world’s least creative forces. The most it can “create,” under even the most optimistic unguided-evolution theories, is novel proportions of organisms in populations. It does that, of course, by a partially-opposite process of destroying part of the population while the other parts live. Even that language is inaccurate, though, for natural selection doesn’t really do anything. It is nothing more than the statistical result of the process by which that that which lives, lives, and that which dies, dies; that which reproduces itself, reproduces itself, and that which does not reproduce itself does not.
Other than this statistical effect, all of evolution’s innovations come by way of random molecular processes in DNA. The only real creative force in evolution is blind, lucky, unguided, and wildly-improbably-successful molecular chance. If naturalistic or deistic evolution is true, that is.
Bret, I’m inclined to think your version of evolution is better described as deistic than theistic. Am I right, or have I misunderstood you?
August 20th, 2011 | 2:05 pm | #93
I’ve corrected the italic code.
August 20th, 2011 | 6:31 pm | #94
Hi Steve & Tom:
In evolution, there’s a random mutation process that takes place: the genes, that constitute the information that controls the organism’s cellular activity, changes, or mutates, spontaneously. It can either be helpful, or hurtful for the organism. If the change, by chance, helps the organism adapt to its environment, then it gets passed on to future generations. This is the foundation of modern evolutionary biology, and when one has billions of these “positive” changes, one sees new organisms emerge, and it explains the number, and diversity of life on earth. Of course, more of the mutations are “bad” causing the organism to be maladaptive, thereby resulting in its death. Of course, those on the creationist side of things deny the efficacy of random mutation of genetic material to “create” new life forms, but this is the foundation of modern evolutionary biology.
No, my version is Christian. I accept that God decided from the start (of course, since God transcends space and time, I’m speaking metaphorically, when I speak of God deciding from the “start”) that humans would arise.
August 21st, 2011 | 12:03 am | #95
Steve,
I think you’re mischaracterizing evolution, and that’s partially my fault. When I was discussing “natural selection” with Bret I was more referring to evolution as a whole, not necessarily that one aspect of a very complex theory. For example:
“When God created or set forth the natural selection process, do you believe that he intended for humans to come into existence, or do you believe that God simple created the process with no control over the outcome. Would God have created the natural selection process if he knew that it would not create humans?”
I suppose that I should have replaced “natural selection process” with “evolutionary process”. I assumed that Bret understood what I was driving at so I didn’t bother to adjust my words before a posted.
However, in the context of you or Tom, those whom I know don’t necessarily agree with evolution I’ll be more careful.
Natural Selection is but one process involved in the evolutionary process. As Bret pointed out, gene mutation has been shown to specialize alleles to such a degree that it creates an entire new species. Other evolutionary forces that are commonly accepted are random genetic drift and gene flow. Genetic drift is a random process whereas natural selection is non-random. Gene flow is the process whereby genes from one population are integrated with another.
I think it’s also important to note that for some reason we have the tendency to create a huge chasm between microevolution and macroevolution, when in reality the lines are very blurred. Microevolution and Macroevolution are more for reference than anything else. They are both driven by the same process. Macroevolution is merely a compound of microevolution processes.
So although Natural Selection does in fact suppress what would be considered inferior genes to survival, when this is coupled with genetic mutation, genetic flow, and other evolutionary forces it makes sense. If there was merely natural selection, then your objection would hold more weight, but I’m afraid that natural selection isn’t as isolated as you paint it to be.
I will say that I don’t find evolution to be incompatible with Christian faith. I don’t think that evolution was random or unguided at all. I know that Bret and I differ in that I believe that God had a large hand in the development of people, and that it was no accident that people or any other animal was created through evolution. I think that natural processes of evolution operate the way they do because God created them to operate that way. Much like gravity or inertia.
Steve and Tom,
I’m fairly certain that there’s very I can do or say to convince you to change your view, and you’re both intelligent and respectful men and I respect you’re position. Thank you for the discussion.
August 21st, 2011 | 1:12 am | #96
Livingston,
Thanks for your excellent comments. I think that you summed up the main points very well. Thanks also for pointing out the other aspects of the evolutionary process, (e.g., genetic drift, and gene flow). My focus, was more on the random genetic mutations, and their important role in the creative process, since i’m guessing that Creationists (meaning those who deny evolution, which is not the same as those, such as myself, you, and others who believe in God) have the most problem seeing how random mutations can create new species, as both Steve and Tom do. But these are crucial aspects of evolution as well, and it’s good you stated them.
I think that I haven’t perhaps been as clear as I should have, regarding my views of God’s involvement, in the evolutionary process, as well as other aspects of reality. I believe that God doesn’t intervene in the evolutionary process, because he doesn’t have to. He’s already set it up, to do what it needs to do, and it would make no sense for him to “tinker” with it, at various stages; this would seem to imply that, he missed something, when he intially set up the evolutionary process.
With regard to human beings, I do believe that God has, and continues, to interact with humans. The latter, possesses the cognitive traits necessary for a relationship with God. Therefore, through prayer, for example, there can be a two way communication, and we can learn from this. This does not seem possible with lesser creatures, due to their lack of rationality, but I would not rule out God interacting, with lesser animals, but I doubt it.
Iunfortunately, this “debate” seems to hinge on a particular reading of the Bible, namely, a highly literal one. If one believes that the Bible is meant to be read as a twentifirst century american would read it, with all the presuppositions that that entails, then one would perhaps be inclined to deny evolution by natural selection. And if one believes that the Bible is a “scientific” book, then one will tend to conclude that evolution is false. But neither makes any sense to me, and I agree with you that, Tom and Steve are intelligent and respectful men.
August 21st, 2011 | 5:29 am | #97
Livingston and Bret,
Thank you, too, for a good, fruitful, and intelligent conversation. I appreciate it.
One note for you, Bret. You say that unfortunately this debate seems to hinge on a particular, literal reading of the Bible, and you go on to explain what you mean by that. You are exactly right as it applies to certain aspects of the debate. It so happens that I don’t accept that literal understanding of the Bible myself. My doubts about evolution are based in empirical considerations, for one thing. Concerning unguided, undirected evolution I wouldn’t even call them doubts: I am convinced that life couldn’t have arranged itself to be the way it is by that process. If an evolutionary process happened, it was directed by God. Life was intelligently designed. I think both of you would agree with me to that extent, and I would agree with you (if an evolutionary process happened), though perhaps Livingston more so than Bret in terms of how God was involved.
I’m watching the theistic evolution discussions to see how they come out vis á vis other Intelligent Design-related ideas. I don’t feel a need to come to a decision on that until the specialists in the field have done so.
I said my doubts about undirected evolution were based on empirical considerations, for one thing. There is also the other determinative consideration, which is that every possible interpretation of Genesis 1-3, and of all the Bible’s many other creation passages, requires that God be directly involved in the creation and formation of the species. I could have mentioned that sooner in that comment, because it really does decide the issue in my mind. I saved it for later because I wanted to focus on the fact that there are empirical reasons for the position I take, too.
August 22nd, 2011 | 11:15 am | #98
Bret, et al.
I am late to this discussion and deliberately so. I do not want to get back into a Creationism/Darwininian Naturalism kerfuffle as I find that often the argument devolves immediately to polar extremes neither with which I find myself in agreement.
However, I think Bret, that you are downplaying or missing a larger question here. The context is the decline of the Christian Church in Western Europe. The fact of that decline is undeniable. What are the factors? Steve (and perhaps Tom?) has posited that the growth of secularism – signaled in particular by a rejection of the Biblical account of origins has been a factor. You disagree and seem to posit just the opposite (that an embrace of Darwinian Naturalism by the Church will result in scientists and skeptics returning to the fold… or at least considering it…). So far I hope I have that right.
But it seems to me that the Creationism/Naturalism debate is something of a distraction from the larger question/context. If we can agree that the Western European Church is in decline, in places where it was once intellectually and culturally vibrant (Holland and England for example), then we can probably agree that there is a “why” behind that decline. And while I agree that that “why” should not be limited to a decline in a particular view of origins (or the embrace of another view) surely you can see that such questions are the symptom of MAJOR factors in said decline?
To try and put it simply: the embrace of Darwin, Kant, Marx, and Freud by many as the fathers of a new universe of thought directly impacted the growth of secular humanism in the West. Each of those systems of thought — and the multiple hybrids of them represents a direct challenge to a broadly Christian way of understanding the world. Thus serially and together each represents a factor in the “decline of the Church of the Church across the pond” do they not?
August 24th, 2011 | 5:49 pm | #99
Pastor C.,
Been waiting for Bret Lythgoe to respond to your post above for several days now. Holding off, so to speak. Lurking to see if any response. I rather enjoyed your clarification. I think however this thread is dead, unless of course Bret revives it.
August 25th, 2011 | 3:08 am | #100
david c.: Thank you for your insights on this matter. It’s my contention, and perhaps yours, and others, that Christianity, in order to be taken seriously by those who do not believe it, but have an open mind, regarding it, must not conflict with what has been established scientifically.
To put it another way, it’s important to have a coherent understanding of reality. If Christianity is true (And I believe that it is) then it cannot conflict with evolution by natural selection, if the latter is true (and I believe that it is). Of course, science is a tentative affair, and its findings may be superseded by subsequent empirical evidence and deductive reasoning, but I seriously doubt that the main conclusions of evolution will be altered, I think only the incidentals, if that. I think that it’s as well established as any scientific theory, such as electromagnetism, gravity, (the latter being altered slightly by Einstein’s General Theory of Gravity), Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc. Of course, in principle, all of these theories, and any other scientific theory, may be scrapped, on the basis of new empirical data, but this seems unlikely in practice.
I agree with you that, of course, there must be a cause or causes for the decline in belief, but if it’s due principally to the theory of evolution’s prominence, we would see this decline here in the US, which we don’t, we seem to have quite a robust Christian belief system, here, in the United States.
Also, unless you, or others, can provide some empirical evidence to show the influence of Marx, Darwin, and Freud, in this decline of belief, I’m rather disinclined to believe that these thinkers have played much of a role.
Why? For one thing, I think that the systems of Freud (e.g., Psychoanalysis) and Marx ( e.g., the overthrowing of Capitalism), aren’t that influential, currently. Freud’s views, seem to lack empirical support, and neuroscience seems to have superseded it, in current thinking of the mind (I’m not an expert here, Tom Gilson is, and can speak on this issue better than I can), and his views I guess, were made consistent with most Christian intellectuals, at least, when his views were persuasive. And Marx’s claims, to be “scientific”, have been never empirically substantiated. In fact, Capitalism seems more congruent with human nature, so it’s influence, on disbelief, is hard to see, since, except in some intellectual circles, it has little impact, I would guess, on most people, and therefore cannot be a principal factor, in Christianity’s decline. But, again, I’m open to evidence, and if you can provide some, I’m willing to assess it fairly.
But even if Marxism was more influential, in the wider culture, that still wouldn’t seem it’s, incompatible with Christianity. Although Marx was, (as was Freud, but Darwin was an agnostic) an atheist, it’s entirely possible to have a “Christian Marxism” (e.g. Terry Eagleton may adhere to a version of “Christian Marxism”). One could take the central economic assertions of Marx, and make them consistent with Christianity.
August 26th, 2011 | 12:26 pm | #101
Bret,
You write: “Also, unless you, or others, can provide some empirical evidence to show the influence of Marx, Darwin, and Freud, in this decline of belief, I’m rather disinclined to believe that these thinkers have played much of a role.”
I guess I am a little stumped by this question. Since the title of this post is “church decline across the pond” an empirical reality about which we are in agreement (ie that secularism has grown/Christian adherence declined in Western Europe) I am curious as to what further “empirical evidence” you require? As secularised humanism has grown (bolstered by the systems of thought I have cited) the influence of and adherence to a Christian worldview has declined. The most obvious marker of which is a decline in things like church attendance. More secularization = less Christians. It seems to me to be a fairly simply zero sum game: “If A then B”…
But perhaps we are speaking past one another? What is it that you think I am missing? Let me restate the case another way: All of the systems of thought I cited (with the exception, perhaps, of Kant’s) share a couple of features; first they are either explicitly or implicitly atheistic, and second they are understood or at least taught as comprehensive. In Freud, Marx, and Darwin, (as well as some of the progeny of Kant) there is (to quote LaPlace) “no need of that hypothesis” (ie a necessary Creator). Insofar as those systems of thought have come to dominate the intellectual and scholastic life of Western Europe there has been a corresponding decline in the influence of a “Biblical” (if you will) world view.
And maybe that gets us to why we may not be understanding one another. You seem to think that these worldviews are not in fact comprehensive but simply suggestive. So, for example, you speak of “Christian Marxism”. With respect to Terry Eagleton (who is way smarter than I am) and the promulgators of Liberation theology, I believe that Christian Marxist makes about as much sense as Christian Atheist. So, in my view one “could take the central economic assertions of Marx and make them consistent with Christianity” only by doing such great violence to one or the other as to render it unrecognizable.
So maybe we need to start with an anthropology and move from there? We begin with the question “what is a human being”. The systems of Freud, Marx, Darwin give unique (and more or less comprehensive) answers to that question, none of which involves terms like “created in the imago dei” or “fallen and in need of redemption”. To accept the former system of thought involves a rejection of some or all of the latter’s central tenets — it cannot help but be so. Ergo a growth in one leads to a decline in the other…
Or am I missing something?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact