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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.