In a post titled The Bible God Should Have Written: Randal Rauser responds to Babinski (which points to this), Victor Reppert asks: "Why do skeptics like to out-fundy the fundies?"
My answer is: "Perhaps because, for the most part, 'fundies' are mythological beings." So, just perhaps, much of the mythology about 'fundies' is a simple matter of Freudian "projection."
I mean, really! I am one of those 'fundies' everyone is always either warning about or being warned about, and Gentle Reader can surely see that I bear no more resemblance to that favoréd cliché than Mr Reppert himself does.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
You don't think the guys over at Triablogue can be over the top at times? I say this as someone who thinks they can put up some ferociously good arguments at times.
And I myself have griped about people who do the "If evolution is true, God doesn't exist!" dance.
"You don't think the guys over at Triablogue can be over the top at times?"
Of course I think some of them can be "over the top" ... but is that really their fundamentalism, or is it something else?
"And I myself have griped about people who do the "If evolution is true, God doesn't exist!" dance."
This “dance,” as you call it, is actually an artifact of the constant equivocal use (by nearly everyone) of the term ‘evolution.’ For instance, in that sentence, the more correct word to use would be ‘evolutionism’ ... and, when the sentence is then more properly phrased, it is seen that this particular “scientific” objection to or critique of ‘fundies’ is just one more instance of the anti-theistic mindset (and corresponding question-begging) colonizing the minds of “educated” persons.
Note, I’m simply pointing out that this particular critique of ‘fundies’ loses all of its punch (except in the minds of ‘fundamentalist’ Darwinists and/or Evangelical Atheists) once it is understood what is really being said/intended by the ‘fundie.’
Crude,
How often have you seen the terms ‘creationism’ and ‘evolution’ paired together as though they were antonyms? Nearly to a man, creationists and evolutionists do this, and IDists and Darwinists do this, and theists and anti-theists do this.
Yet, does not this pairing reflect a subtle propaganda (involving question-begging and special-pleading and hidden assumptions) in favor of ‘evolutionism’ (aka ‘Darwinism’ or ‘Blind Watchmaker’ anti-IDism)?
If we use imprecise language, our thinking tends also to be imprecise.
How often have you seen the terms ‘creationism’ and ‘evolution’ paired together as though they were antonyms? Nearly to a man, creationists and evolutionists do this, and IDists and Darwinists do this, and theists and anti-theists do this.
Very often, which always strikes me as downright bizarre. Admittedly, it strikes me as more bizarre coming from theists, particularly Christians, the majority who claim to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God. Since evolution does not on its own challenge, nor can it challenge, omnipotence or omniscience, and thus would just be yet another creative tool or description of a creative method by God. (To put it somewhat anthropomorphically, but you get what I mean.)
Yet, does not this pairing reflect a subtle propaganda (involving question-begging and special-pleading and hidden assumptions) in favor of ‘evolutionism’ (aka ‘Darwinism’ or ‘Blind Watchmaker’ anti-IDism)?
Agreed, if I'm properly understanding you. And I blame, of all people, theistic evolutionists for a good share of the modern confusion in this regard.
If we use imprecise language, our thinking tends also to be imprecise.
Which is why I now have a deep-seated dislike of some "scientific" language many would call benign. Like referring to mutations as "accidents", or transcription changes in DNA as "errors".
Imo, the atheist's attacks might be somewhat valid, except that I reject his argument as false. For example, I don't think the Bible paints the sky as necessarily being "solid" or any of that other garbage.
Although even if it did, the vacuum of space would create such an impenetrable barrier for the ancients that it may as well have been solid.
There is a difference between reading a text literally and engaging in what we might call a "wooden literalism." To read a text literally is to read it as it is meant to be understood.
For example, if you were to write or speak of having travelled to "the four corners of the world," and I were then to assert that you believe the world to be essentially flat and possessed of four corners, whatever I might be guilty of having done, I certainly have not treated what you wrote or said literally. Rather, I have done the opposite of treating it literally; for I have misrepresented your meaning.
Evolution challenges not the God of the philosophers but the God of history ie. Adam and Eve,Fall, Flood.
Among many ways people have dealt is Belloc's (OT is the just a set of Jewish fables accepted by the Church) and the curious interpretation given by CS Lewis in Miracles about Adam and Eve representing a tribe or a set of humans that had evolved from pre-humans and then blessed by God (something like 2001).
I think Chesterton was wholly dismissive about Evolution but he was of a generation previous to CS Lewis.
Also is it very useful or even very meaningful to argue whether this or other text is inspired by God?
For in a sense, all that us good is inspired by God.
I would say that these texts were accepted by Church as Holy Scripture and the Word of God
and the Church was inspired to make this decision.
That is, the Church was not in error to make this decision.
Not that there is no error in the texts themselves.
CS Lewis speaks of devilish influences in the cursing and self-righteous Psalms. However I think he should have moderated his language considering he knew no Hebrew.
Gyan,
Evolution challenges not the God of the philosophers but the God of history ie. Adam and Eve,Fall, Flood.
I don't see where evolution challenges any of those things without qualification. The flood would be a geology question, and then it's a question of whether the flood was literal, and just how literal, etc. Adam and Eve? In the broad sense, no, though certainly particular views are challenged (Adam and Eve directly created with no biological precursors 6000 years ago).
But the fall? I've heard some Christians say that if the events of Genesis did not play out exactly as described, that there is no fall and humanity needs no savior. I admit, that always baffles me. It's rather like saying that if YEC literalism is not true, then no humans are greedy or self-righteous or any number of things. As someone I forget (Lewis? Chesterton?) said - that humanity is fallen is pretty much empirical fact.
No, I think it's clear humanity is fallen. That's one of those things that's practically unanimous among all religions, faiths, and cultures. And I don't see how the truth of evolution - that there were first humans, that they had a relationship with God, and that they fell - really challenges that.
Gyan: "Evolution challenges ..."
'Evolution' (whatever that word means) and 'evolutionism' are two very different things.
Crude,
Under evolutionary picture, mankind has not fallen, but if anything, is rising through the animaility.
Also, it is not obvious and certainly not generally accepted that the mankind has fallen. Eg Hindus dont believe it.
They may say that man is sinful but he is sinful by nature i.e owing to the imperfection of being finite and matter-bound.
Crude,
That men behave badly is an observable fact but it does not imply that they are fallen from a higher standard. They may have behaved worse in past.
Or the behavior level may be cyclic (as in some Hindu theories)
Gyan,
Can you not see that in both your most recent posts -- and including in your reference to the "evolutionary picture" -- you testify to the reality of an objective standard, "higher" if you will, against which human behavior can be judged.
How can it be, and how can one detect, that human beings are "rising through the animaility" unless there is that to which they are allegedly rising?
How can it be, and how can one detect, that human beings are sinful -- that humans are not as they ought to be -- unless there is an ought, and the ought is knowable?
Gyan: "That men behave badly is an observable fact but it does not imply that they are fallen from a higher standard. They may have behaved worse in past."
How can it be, and how can one observe, that men behave badly unless there exists a knowable standard which they are failing to meet and against which their behavior may be judged?
How can one even sensibly say "They may have behaved worse in past" absent such a standard?
How can it even be logically possible that hypothetically "worse" past behavior can refute the reality of an objective standard against which human behavior can be judged?
He's right. If humanity was always evil then there is no Fall.
On the other hand, if Adam was actually the first human to evolve, then I guess God could have temporarily elevated him in Eden and then he could have fallen back down. But you have to be elevated in order to fall.
Even if God did that trick by turning two chimps into humans and calling them Adam and Eve, it completely undermines the biblical text. For example, in what sense was Eve created from Adam's rib if they both just evolved? It's easy to get way too loose with the text really fast.
I agree that the theory that man evolved from animals directly undermines the Bible. And overall, C.S. Lewis was heretical on numerous matters, not just this one.
"He's right. If humanity was always evil then there is no Fall."
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about that, one way or another.
Gyan,
Under evolutionary picture, mankind has not fallen, but if anything, is rising through the animaility.
But this is incorrect. Under an evolutionary picture, what we know as "man" had biological precursors. It says nothing about what state the first man was in, etc (Really, it has trouble internally picking out what would qualify as the first man. But an external standard, God's in particular, could be used there.)
Now, there are people who insist that God never interacted with the first man, etc. But those are claims distinct from evolution itself.
Also, it is not obvious and certainly not generally accepted that the mankind has fallen. Eg Hindus dont believe it.
They may say that man is sinful but he is sinful by nature i.e owing to the imperfection of being finite and matter-bound.
I took "fallen" to mean "in a sinful, imperfect state - not perfect, not ideal". Not that they subscribe to a particular fall event.
But even with hindus, I don't think that's clear. It's complicated by (among many) a kind of monism/idealism - where we're all Brahman, but don't realize it. With hindus, it'd probably be more apt to say creation is fallen, but it goes through cycles. Fallen, saved, fallen, etc, with individuals permanently transcending it.
That men behave badly is an observable fact but it does not imply that they are fallen from a higher standard. They may have behaved worse in past.
To acknowledge men behave badly is to acknowledge that there is a standard they fail to meet. That alone gets you very close to the doctrine of original sin. And given that the existence of a first man is entirely compatible with evolution (see above), you pretty much have all the pieces necessary for fallen humanity. Particulars are open to debate (who did Adam and Eve's offsprings interbreed with? Was it a communal falling by the acts of two? Etc.), but remember, all I'm saying here is that evolution doesn't rule out Adam & Eve or a fall.
I'd also point out one thing made clear in Genesis: The fall was, historically speaking, *fast*. The first man who showed up, himself fell. To say "every man (save Christ) was fallen and corrupt" is, oddly enough, not enough to doubt Original Sin or a fall. The only difference would be that Adam sin was in his lifetime, rather than due to a sin of his biological precursors.
Drew,
Even if God did that trick by turning two chimps into humans and calling them Adam and Eve, it completely undermines the biblical text. For example, in what sense was Eve created from Adam's rib if they both just evolved? It's easy to get way too loose with the text really fast.
First, who here is saying that Adam and Eve "just evolved"? That implies that God had no direct interaction with humanity at any point - but that's a claim which goes beyond evolution. Not to mention, I'm not talking here about Darwinism, that weird religious monstrosity that asserts everything that's come about did so blindly, by chance, etc.
Second, I don't see how what I'm discussing "completely undermines" the text. You still have Adam and Eve. You still have an interaction with and relationship to God. An act of defiance, a fall. The problem you bring up is "the rib", but not only does that seem far from the central concern, but that can still have a meaning. I'd suspect it meant that the shaping of Eve/woman was meant to make the two complimentary to each other - that Eve was not some separate, distinct thing or being or lineage. They were a pair.
I don't know what beliefs you're bringing to the table, and frankly, I have no bone to pick with YECs, OECs, etc. I used to, but after seeing what many academics believe without criticism (Humans have no thoughts, no consciousness, no beliefs, etc) those beliefs seem downright benign to me.
For myself, I fail to see how evolution as I've summed it up conflicts with the essentials of the Bible, Genesis particularly.
(I'd also add that I don't think it's accurate to think of humans as 'evolved from animals' in some complete sense. Some of what we have is unique to humanity, period.)
//I'd suspect it meant that the shaping of Eve/woman was meant to make the two complimentary to each other - that Eve was not some separate, distinct thing or being or lineage. They were a pair.//
Yeah, except that if Eve evolved separately then she *was* separate and distinct.
//For myself, I fail to see how evolution as I've summed it up conflicts with the essentials of the Bible, Genesis particularly.//
Well it depends on how you define "essential." But just using the one example I've already given, you can see that evolutionism tends to undermine the notion that man should be the head of the family because he was created first.
Theoretically, I do think you could believe that God turned Adam and Eve from apes into the first humans, and then offered them a chance of righteous living which they rejected -- necessitating Jesus's eventual atonement. But in order to believe that, you really have to butcher the text to the point where you call into question the validity of the rest of the Bible, and you also lose out on some secondary issues like the lost innocence of creation itself and the subordination of women.
Drew,
Yeah, except that if Eve evolved separately then she *was* separate and distinct.
Not at all. Why think that? You may as well say she was separate and distinct because she had, according to a hyper literal reading, made out of a rib rather than in the same fashion as Adam.
And what does it mean to "evolve separately" here anyway? Especially given that in this scenario biological evolution is only part of the story, and not the essential one for man?
Well it depends on how you define "essential." But just using the one example I've already given, you can see that evolutionism tends to undermine the notion that man should be the head of the family because he was created first.
I don't see that at all. But I'd say, if you think that the notion of man as head of the family comes down to "Well, he was created first", then I have to wonder what reasoning you're using. Again, I fail to see how the mere truth of evolution - which in this case amounts to biological precursors of Adam and Eve - undermines teachings that in no way rely on the truth or falsity of evolution anyway.
This echoes my problem with the usual fall response: The idea that there was exactly one way, one rapt and specific historical scenario, whereby man could fall. And that seems like a tremendously (I would say impossibly) difficult view to hold.
But in order to believe that, you really have to butcher the text to the point where you call into question the validity of the rest of the Bible, and you also lose out on some secondary issues like the lost innocence of creation itself and the subordination of women.
I just don't see it. Not the butchering of the text (Discarding of one specific interpretation of the text, sure - but that's not butchering), nor the loss of the secondary issues you mention. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I've seen claims like these before, and I've just never been persuaded by the argumentation.
Now, I will give you one thing: There is a fear, and I consider it a legitimate one, that viewing Genesis as describing an evolutionary history for life on earth, or for biological precursors of man, will undermine the bible in the sense that you'll have people who say "Well, that interpretation changed! Why not this one, and that one, or that one, or.." And honestly, a lot of TEs seem to take that route, or seem to view the whole YEC/OEC thing as the first of a series of steps to make this or that Christian group into some horrible, warped liberal thing. But then, *any change of mind on any interpretation* would open that particular door.
I reject the moves of those TEs. And I'll point out, I'm not saying "YECs/OECs should cease being YECs/OECs" at all - not my concern here, and I think it's a red herring anyway. I'm just stressing that accepting evolution neither disproves God/theism, nor the God of the Bible, nor (I'd add) central teachings like original sin, a fall, etc, including those you list.
In fact, I'd rather like to see YECs/OECs argue that A) If evolution (Again, in the sense given - as opposed to some atheistic darwinist faith, which is wildly unscientific and metaphysical) were true, it wouldn't disprove Christianity, B) Nor would it disprove the fall, original sin, our need for a savior, etc, and C) Therefore any TEs taking these positions are wrong.
Hopefully I'm coming across clearly here.
Does God do tricks or acts of Beauty?
He acts, what else is randomness?
Does Rational Soul evolve or is bestowed?
CS Lewis was no heretic but a great imaginative thinker and in dealing with this problem, great deal of imagination is required rather than legalistic thinking.
Crude: "... As someone I forget (Lewis? Chesterton?) said - that humanity is fallen is pretty much empirical fact."
I've seen this quote and attribution before:
“The only Christian doctrine for which there is empirical evidence is that of original sin.”
-G.K. Chesterton
At the same time, there are all sorts of webpages which attribute essentially the same idea to Reinhold Niebuhr [Google the following -- "only Christian doctrine" Niebuhr].
This book says that John Wesley had also said it, though not so pithily as Chesterton and/or Niebuhr.
The truth is, all men in all times and in all cultures have intuitively understood that there is something wrong with/about humanity.
Gyan: "Evolution challenges not the God of the philosophers but the God of history ie. Adam and Eve,Fall, Flood."
Ilíon: "'Evolution' (whatever that word means) and 'evolutionism' are two very different things."
The 'evolutionism' Gyan spoke of (misidentifying it as 'evolution') does not actually challenge the God of the Bible -- and, for that matter, it doesn't even challenge a YEC understanding of the Creation.
Rather, it simply asserts the denial of both. And that isn't a challenge; it can be answered simply by denying its denial.
'Evolutionism' is but a set of statements of atheism, of God-denial. Even if we did not (or could not) know on other grounds that atheism is false, and therefore that any set of propositions dependent upon atheism must be false, we can rationally deny 'evolutionism' on at least two grounds:
1) its own inherent contradictions and irrationality;
2) by simply denying its assumptions/axioms -- for, as they are not, after all, self-evident, we are under no rational obligation to assent to them.
The societal problem is that the God-deniers have been gnawing at the roots of education for a good century, intentionally subverting real education and the fostering of critical thinking with indoctrination. Thus, nearly everyone assumes the assumptions/axioms of 'evolutionism' are self-evident -- for it was a prime goal of the indoctrination in the guise of education to get that result, to train up each new generation to be blind to the rationally questionable nature of those assumption. Thus, nearly everyone who rejects 'evolutionism' is on the defensive, not understanding that there is no need to be.
Gyan: "Does God do tricks or acts of Beauty?
He acts, what else is randomness?
Does Rational Soul evolve or is bestowed?
CS Lewis was no heretic but a great imaginative thinker and in dealing with this problem, great deal of imagination is required rather than legalistic thinking."
Gyan,
I don't give a damn about Hinduism -- it (not that one really can speak of Hinduism as a single entity) is irrational and illogical, and I am a rational being.
To be more precise, I don't give a damn about the posits of Hinduism, which you have been attempting to insert into the conversation, any more than I give a damn about the posits of the old 'logical positivism' (which is long discredited, yet is still quite popular amongst God-deniers). Unless you can show us reasons to take these posits of Hinduism seriously, then you're just wasting bandwidth.
Now, the conversation as it has developed has little to do with the OP -- and that's OK (I'm not one of those "anal-retentive" persons who freaks out that a conversation has changed course); but, just tossing out some posits of Hinduism is not engaging the conversation.
Gyan: "... in dealing with this problem, great deal of imagination is required rather than legalistic thinking."
You're using the phrase 'legalistic thinking' ... but you're using the phrase to refer to *logical* thinking.
Gyan: "Does Rational Soul evolve or is bestowed?"
Considering that you have capitalized the words, the correct answer is that "Rational Soul" is self-existent, and that it does not evolve, for it is always perfect (which word means 'complete' or 'whole') and does not (logically cannot) change.
//I don't see that at all. But I'd say, if you think that the notion of man as head of the family comes down to "Well, he was created first", then I have to wonder what reasoning you're using.//
"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)
And the issue is not whether evolutionism is a new interpretation of Genesis. The issue is whether the original readers would have interpreted it to include the possibility of evolution. There are all sorts of ways you can symbolicize parts of the Bible. The way to determine whether your interpretation is legitimate is to ask how the original readers would have understood it.
Ilion,
Rational Soul self-existent?? This is what Hindus say.
I thought Christian position is that Rational Souls are created and only God is self-existent.
.
Your position is not clear to me,
Do you or do you not believe in evolution?
If, as CS Lewis accepted evolution of man, evolution is true then do we not need to find a congenial interpretation of Genesis?
And will it be found by logical analysis?
Could Incarnation be deduced by logic?
Drew,
And the issue is not whether evolutionism is a new interpretation of Genesis. The issue is whether the original readers would have interpreted it to include the possibility of evolution.
Original readers? What about the intention of the original Author?
Even with that aside - I'm not saying that I interpret Genesis as teaching evolution. "Compatible with" evolution, sure. Compatible with a YEC view as well. Because particular method of creation doesn't at all seem stressed in Genesis. In fact, the "how" seems beside the point - more that God is responsible for all of nature, etc. I'd believe the original readers took that view, even if a compatible cosmology (or cosmologies) was developed after the fact.
As for the Corinthians quote, again, I fail to see the problem. Woman's role in relation to man certainly seems stressed throughout the bible, Genesis included - but that doesn't seem to rule out evolution for me, or require it. Keep in mind, I'm not trying to force some weird, strict Darwinist view of evolution on the Bible. I think God directly interacted with man. I think an event occurred in the past which went beyond evolution, even if the first man had biological precursors.
Put another way: I think one problem in this debate is you have atheists/anti-theists and some very liberal TEs insisting on what must be given up if one accepts evolution. The opinions of the anti-theists mean nothing to me - they're all fire, little substance. The liberal TEs are in a similar boat. But both of them make a huge deal out of evolution, and crow about what accepting it means, as if their bizarre atheist-Darwinist interpretation of history is the only other option. I tend to brush off their posturing and their bad arguments.
Incidentally, thank you for having such a reasoned tone about this, even though you obviously disagree with me deeply.
Drew: "He's right. If humanity was always evil then there is no Fall."
Ilíon: "I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about that, one way or another."
Judaism denies that there was a Fall of Man as Christianity, or at any rate, as popular culture, understands that particular doctrine. The rabbis say that this doctrine has always been a part of Judaism ... and, how could I prove it wasn't? ... but, I suspect that this Jewish doctrine was actually formulated as a response to, and denial of, the corresponding Christian doctrine.
I could try to explain (my understanding of) the Jewish doctrine on the human condition, but that might lead the conversation into yet another digression.
Drew: "On the other hand, if Adam was actually the first human to evolve, then I guess God could have temporarily elevated him in Eden and then he could have fallen back down. But you have to be elevated in order to fall."
What if *we* are "the fallen angels"? What if The Fall of Man happened not within time, but "outside" time? What if the material Cosmos is both judgment and mercy; what if it is both punishment for our rebellion and the merciful means for forgivenness of our rebellion?
Drew: "I agree that the theory that man evolved from animals directly undermines the Bible. And overall, C.S. Lewis was heretical on numerous matters, not just this one."
Now see, normally I would understand the phrase "the theory that man evolved from animals directly " to be talking about 'modern evolutionary theory,' aka Darwinism or atheistic evolutionism. And, so of course, were atheistic evolutionism true, then the Biblical claim that we are created cannot be true. Likewise, if God created us -- no matter what material means he used to do so -- then, of course, atheistic evolutionism cannot be true.
However, it seems clear that you're not using the phrase "the theory that man evolved from animals directly " to mean atheistic evolutionism, but rather to refer to a belief or claim that the human species is biologically descended from some prior, and non-human, species.
But notice, there is a very fundamental difference between these two potential usages!
The first, as it is the assertion of atheistic evolutionism, denies that any rational/intelligent agent intended the human species to exist; it asserts that we are accidents.
The second -- let's call it 'evolutionism simpliciter' -- makes no assertion, one way or the other, about any intentionality to our esiatence.
C.S.Lewis believed that God used evolutionary processes to create the Cosmos and to cause the human species to exist. His position was a denial of the atheistic evolutionism position, and went beyond, or subsumed, the evolutionism simpliciter position.
Moreover, late in his life, seeing that evolutionism simpliciter had become in the popular mind synonymous with atheistic evolutionism (due to the tireless and intellectually dishonest efforts of the Darwinists), he had begun to question his long-time policy of saying little about evolutionary ideas.
Crude: "... I'm not saying that I interpret Genesis as teaching evolution. "Compatible with" evolution, sure. Compatible with a YEC view as well. Because particular method of creation doesn't at all seem stressed in Genesis. In fact, the "how" seems beside the point - more that God is responsible for all of nature, etc. I'd believe the original readers took that view, even if a compatible cosmology (or cosmologies) was developed after the fact."
Exactly. The Genesis account isn't about the "how" of the Creation, but rather the fact of it. It's about the claim that the world *is* a Cosmos, and that it is intended; it's about denial of the claim -- the pagan and atheistic claim -- that the world, the Cosmos, "arose" unintended, all on its own, out of a pre-existing Chaos and/or nothingness.
Crude: "Put another way: I think one problem in this debate is you have atheists/anti-theists and some very liberal TEs insisting on what must be given up if one accepts evolution. ..."
The very term 'evolution' is misused and misdefined by the evolutionists; this misuse is now customary, but was intentional originally. Charles Dawin avoided using the term 'evolution' precisely because its meaning was so in opposition to the anti-teleological metaphysic he was pushing.
The term 'evolution' was coined for use in the science of embryology. Contrary to the constant insistence of Darwinists, the term does not mean mere "change over time." Rather, it means "structured development over time." The term is inherently teleological.
Crude: "I'd also point out one thing made clear in Genesis: The fall was, historically speaking, *fast*. The first man who showed up, himself fell. To say "every man (save Christ) was fallen and corrupt" is, oddly enough, not enough to doubt Original Sin or a fall. The only difference would be that Adam sin was in his lifetime, rather than due to a sin of his biological precursors."
Just to be clear, the Christian doctrine of 'Original Sin' is not really about a specific sinful act that the first two humans (whether a literal a "first two" or a metaphorical "first two") committed. Rather, it is about the fact that we all are sinful in our natures, it is about the claim that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory or God."
The doctrine is about understanding that our problem is not that we sin, but rather that we are sinners -- we are not sinners because we commit sin(s); rather we commit sin(s) becasue we are sinners. We are, all of us, sinners; and there is nothing that we ourselves can do to rectify that.
Gyan: "Your position is not clear to me, Do you or do you not believe in evolution?"
Well, some success in my part then ... as that is my intention.
Gyan: "If, as CS Lewis accepted evolution of man, evolution is true then do we not need to find a congenial interpretation of Genesis?"
There is no conflict between a belief that we are created and a belief that we evolved. Crude has already discussed this: it is only an atheistic (and pagan, for that matter) evolutionism that cannot be squared with Genesis.
Whether God created us directly from mud a few thousand years ago, or whether God used an aeons-long evolutionary process to create us from mud, *that* God created us stands wholly in contrast to the atheistic/pagan assertion that we "arose."
Gyan: "And will it be found by logical analysis?"
There is no conflict to resolve.
Gyan: "Could Incarnation be deduced by logic?"
Come now! Everyone knows, or ought to know, that while logic can lead us to many truths, it cannot lead us to all truths. Including that one.
@Crude
//Original readers? What about the intention of the original Author?//
That's way too subjective a standard, and it also implies that God was willing to communicate so indecipherably that no one could even figure out what he actually meant for thousands of years. It ultimately throws pretty much the whole Bible up in the air.
@Ilíon
You really addressed the main issue when you pointed out that evolutionism teaches creation by random acts whereas creationism teaches creation by intentional acts. That's probably the main reason I don't think evolutionism is compatible with the Bible.
I was sorta leaving that issue aside, though, because I figure that most people will be willing to ignore it and equate God with randomness. Theoretically, there is nothing wrong with stating that God used his own foreknowledge combined with the natural act of evolution to create mankind. The only problem comes in biblically, where the Bible states that the Holy Spirit directly gave Adam the breath of life. So once again, the philosophical could theoretically support Christianity, but it would undermine the biblical text.
Drew,
That's way too subjective a standard, and it also implies that God was willing to communicate so indecipherably that no one could even figure out what he actually meant for thousands of years. It ultimately throws pretty much the whole Bible up in the air.
I disagree that "no one could even figure out what He actually meant for thousands of years". Did God create the heavens and the earth? All creatures? Humanity? Did God have a specific relationship with humanity? How about man with woman? Was there a fall? I affirm all these things, along with those over thousands of years.
I think what's going on here is that there was a clear teaching in the bible, and a compatible cosmology that was held (And again, not universally held - see the example of Augustine, etc). Equating the two, I think, is a mistake. But again, I have no bone to pick with YECs or OECs, beliefwise. I just see evolution as not a threat, qualified as I've said.
And for the record, Ilion's thoughts echo my own re: Evolution versus Darwinism. The evolution that is random, unguided, etc is metaphysical excess, scientifically unsupported and unsupportable, and I reject it. I got into it with Matzke over the BS he and the NCSE regularly engage in. The entire evolution question in the west is handled horribly. Probably intentionally so.
Ed Babinksi? Ah right, the Duke Uni career librarian. Pillar of objectivity. Reincarnation of George Carlin - minus the career in stand-up. Or success. Or ability to be funny...
Well, I take that last one back. He does make people laugh.
What can I say ... Reppert takes (or, at least, puts on a polite show of seeming to) Babinski seriously.
... in fact, Mr Reppert will (at least passively) acquiesce to a deliberate misrepresentation about me such as you can be sure he would not about Mr Babibski.
It's the natural/logical result of valuing "niceness" above truth.
Ilion, I don't think I ever told you we needed to go back to kindergarten. http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2006/10/ed-babinski-on-argument-from-evil.html#c116233422409005648
I did say that to Ed.
V.Reppert: "Ilion, I don't think I ever told you we needed to go back to kindergarten.
I did say that to Ed."
1) What you said to Babinski was to suggest that "we" go back to Kindergarten. In effect, "OK, somewhere, someone is misunderstanding something; so, let's start over from the beginning."
You didn't actually tell him that he "needed to go back to Kindergarten."
You didn't actually tell him that anyone "needed to go back to Kindergarten."
You, "nice" guy that you are, said "we" -- you included yourself in that very oblique criticism of his behavior.
2) That was nearly four years ago ... and nothing has changed with him, or with his arguments. Has it?
... though, you did, at the end of that post, get a little "badboy" and bluntly tell him that his behavior forces you to conclude that he's full of BS.
That is, while you didn't use the actual words (as I do), you told him that you finally are forced by his own behavior to conclude that he is intellectually dishonest on these matters.
And to think, you once wrote this post for my benefit.
More to the point at issue here, I was criticizing Babinski for attacking the Bible on the grounds that it fails to provide precise, 21st Century science, something that most inerrantists know better than to expect. Yes, there are lead-footed literalists out there, but those are "fundies", as it were, who don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy as understood by, for example, the Chicago Statement. So Babinski think's he's refuting the Bible, or evangelicalism, when he is simply refuting a straw man.
Intellectual dishonesty? The best suspects for intellectual dishonesty are the people who keep talking about how intellectually honest they are. The people who keep respond to everything I say by saying that if I just take an "outsider test" I'll believe just as they do.
V.Reppert: "More to the point at issue here, I was criticizing Babinski for attacking the Bible on the grounds that it fails to provide precise, 21st Century science, something that most inerrantists know better than to expect. Yes, there are lead-footed literalists out there, but those are "fundies", as it were, who don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy as understood by, for example, the Chicago Statement. So Babinski think's he's refuting the Bible, or evangelicalism, when he is simply refuting a straw man."
Did I criticize you for that?
I'm pretty sure that all I did is point out (or, claim, in one prefers) that "fundies" are largely mythological ... strawmen, if you will.
I long ago noticed that the folk who yammer on most about the intellectual failings of "fundies" -- Darwinists, Evangelical Atheists, social liberals and/or libertines -- tend to be mirror images of the the "fundies" they claim to be battling.
V.Reppert: "Intellectual dishonesty? The best suspects for intellectual dishonesty are the people who keep talking about how intellectually honest they are. The people who keep respond to everything I say by saying that if I just take an "outsider test" I'll believe just as they do."
Certainly, the man who is always talking about intellectual honesty, and especially if he's always tooting his own horn, may well be imagining that he can thereby distract attention from his own intellectual dishonesty.
Or, he may simply have noticed that the reason "dialogue" with persons of certain mindsets is so generally fruitless is because those persons tend to protect that mindset from critical evaluation by means of intellectual dishonesty.
For instance --
In this huge thread of comments (currently at 410 comments) on Cornelius Hunter's blog, the DarwinDefenders are up in arms because I mock their assertions (which are based at best on ignorance and ultimately on someone's intellectual dishonesty) that the 'Avida' program provides evidential support for Darwinism. Now, I *could* show, in multiple ways, that the 'Avida' program (nor any program) never can do what its authors and proponents like to imply and even explicitly claim it does ... And those DarwinDefenders at Mr Hunter's blog will never admit that the claims about 'Avida' are both false and logically impossible, despite the fact that falsifying the claims about 'Avida' doesn't touch upon Darwinism.
For example --
I took me a while to find it (I long ago gave up on ARN, and they've reorganized the board), but in this thread I spent a great deal of time explaining on logical, mathematical and programmatic grounds why no program ever can do what the 'Avida' proponents claim it does. The response of those DarwinDefenders was obfuscation and outright lying. Then, I posted my "ace in the hole" (I described how *anyone* can run 'Avida' and see for himself that it always produces the same results given the same inputs) ... and the response was to claim that I'd broken it.
Some people just are intellectually dishonest. And, they tend to congregate.
In case you didn't see this post on Loftus, I just quoted his words and let the reader draw his own conclusions.
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2010/09/lofty-thoughts-by-loftus-on-loftus.html
Some people accuse themselves of intellectual dishonesty.
"In case you didn't see this post on Loftus, ..."
I saw the header, but I didn't read it, 'cause, frankly, Loftus bores me.
"... I just quoted his words and let the reader draw his own conclusions."
Well, you did give your reader a hint.
Too much to comment to but:
"Since evolution does not on its own challenge, nor can it challenge, omnipotence or omniscience, and thus would just be yet another creative tool or description of a creative method by God. "
Indeed, evolution is a descriptive statement of the phenomena presented by the fossil record, etc.
Nothing in it rules out a guiding principle, or a a First Cause; and the Fall is a moral or spiritual reality (if accepted) that would not leave any marks in the fossil record.
As I was taught in catechism, there is nothing incompatible with the Bible per se in the observation, unless one takes an extremely literal understanding of the account therein.
If you accept that there is a First Cause, and that It allowed the development of the world as observed as Its means of Creation, and believe that at some point a Soul was infused into the "product" of that means, and that first ensouled pair sinned and Fell, there is no difference.
The question is at best, over what means the First Cause/God used to create the world. Even the Big Bang could be interpreted as the moment of Creation ex nihilio and the "Fiat Lux" moment.
Did God just speak things into Being, or is that a metaphor for His use and authorship and guidance of a means He set into motion.
If Picard says "Make it so" and the Enterprise shoots into Warp, did it do so simply by his sayso, or dis his command simply set a chain of causes into motion via various agents to cause the jump to warp?
I see no particular reason why one must accept literally a set of metaphorical fables in order to accept the truth within the tales. Or that those tales may simply be the manner in which folks of that era were able to express and comprehend the truth presented to them.
If Hinduism is irrational, so is any other naive acceptance of mythology as literally true.
The best that an Atheist can say, looking at the evidence is that there is *no reason* in their mind to believe there is an agent behind the phenomenon observed...which is often due to ignorance or extremely naive understandings of metaphysics, epistemology or even religion; not to mention simply ignoring or rejecting the fact that such an agent is being believed in by Faith.
The "Evolutionist" simply dismisses TE as a possibility, heck they barely even acknowledge their/our existence, and reduce all religious believers to the level of the most stereotyped and probably straw man "Fundie" position possible.
They obviously do so for rhetorical or sophistic purposes; to make their opponents seem ridiculous. They may claim (and some have to me), that the Fundie is the reductio ad absurdum of the TE position. Yet the arguments they give for that reductio are weak at best.
"Did God just speak things into Being, or is that a metaphor for His use and authorship and guidance of a means He set into motion."
In this case, it's both metaphor and literal truth. And, its continuous.
"I think Chesterton was wholly dismissive about Evolution but he was of a generation previous to CS Lewis. "
Chesterton shows no sign of understanding what Darwin's theory was--he writes as if "evolution" simply means "gradual change." No mechanism.
_The Everlasting Man_ is a delightful book, and his claim about comparative religion may for all I know be correct, but the treatment of evolution is his usual brilliant writing combined with almost complete ignorance of the subject.
And yes, I know it's an old thread, but I just came across it. Since I am an atheist, a believer in evolution, and an admirer of Chesterton, it struck me as worth commenting.
"And yes, I know it's an old thread ..."
That's quite alright. I sometimes read old entries on your blog.
"Since I am an atheist, a believer in evolution, ..."
I know *sigh* ... but that can be corrected. if you wish.
Also, Mr Friedman, welcome to me blog, such as it is. I'm honored that you have chosen to let me know that you've read something on it.
Post a Comment