Second in the Series: Meals With Jesus
The Last Supper
Why “Meals with Jesus”?
a. Premise: a meal is a metaphor for fellowship; the sort of sustaining fellowship that nourishes the soul.
Rev. 3:20 Listen! I am standing at the door and knocking! If anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will come into his home and share a meal with him, and he with me.
Your personal spiritual growth is contingent upon fellowship with Jesus.
“…all human beings eat, and when they do most of them seek companionship with one another and with their god.” ROBERT F. O’TOOLE, ABD
Questions: How am I growing? How is my fellowship with Jesus? What might I do now to ‘have a meal’ with him? What am I willing to commit to in your presence?
b. The culmination of all things in Christ is summarized by the Marriage Feast of the Lamb
Rev. 19:7 Let us rejoice and exult and give him glory, because the wedding celebration of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready.
19:9 Then the angel said to me, “Write the following: Blessed are those who are invited to the banquet at the wedding celebration of the Lamb!” He also said to me, “These are the true words of God.”
Questions: What do I anticipate most about the future? Am I prepared for this meal?
c. The six feasts and the fast of Yom Kippur are the expressions of fellowship with God in Israel, and the hope of blessing in the future.
Questions: What are those feasts and that fast? Cf. Exodus 23 and 34; Deut. 31. Why were they important to Israel? Why do you think God invested so much attention in such festivals? What does their layout through the year tell you about their meaning? Any implications for us and our ways of ‘celebrating’ or ‘resting’?
d. The Gospels are replete with such meals.
Questions: How many can you identify? Why so many? What does that tell us about Jesus’ lifestyle? What does that tell us about the Gospel writers’ evaluation of those meals?
II. Which meal is the Last Supper?
a. The Gospels tell us that the Last Supper occurred during Passover.
i. The Passover commemorated the defining moment in Israel’s history. Exodus 11-13.
ii. Mark 14:12–16; par. Luke 22:15
b. Several elements of the meal are Passover-connected.
1. Prayers, Washings, Songs
2. Cups of Wine
3. Bread
4. Retelling the story of deliverance
During the Passover meal someone, usually the youngest son, was designated to ask the question “Why is this night different from other nights?” At this point the host would retell the story of Israel’s deliverance out of Egypt and the meaning of the various elements of the meal. As the host of the Last Supper, Jesus would have been the one who retold the story. Dict of Jesus & the Gospels
c. The management of the meal follows Passover custom.
i. Led by the head of a household.
ii. Proceeding through a set order (seder; cf. Thursday’s demonstration).
iii. Consisting of prescribed elements.
The Passover Elements. The meal consisted mainly of six elements.
1. The most significant was the Passover lamb, which had to be roasted over a fire. All the lamb had to be eaten that night. Nothing could be saved. The lamb of course reminded the participants of the first Passover in which the angel of death was kept from visiting the first-born of Israel because they were protected by the blood of the lamb.
2. The unleavened bread reminded them of the swiftness of God’s deliverance. His salvation was so swift that the people of Israel did not have time to bake bread.
3. The bowl of salt water reminded them of the tears shed in their captivity and the crossing of the Red Sea.
4. The bitter herbs recalled the bitterness of their slavery.
5. A fruit puree called Charosheth reminded them of the clay which they used to make bricks in their captivity in Egypt.
6. Finally, there were four cups of wine, mixed three parts water to one part wine, which reminded them of the promises of Exodus 6:6-7. The third cup of blessing was probably the one Jesus used in the Last Supper (Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:25). The fourth cup was followed by a benediction and singing. IVP Dictionary of Jesus & the Gospels, R. H. Stein
The Passover The Last Supper
God remembered his covenant A new covenant is enacted
Slavery in Egypt [Slavery to sin?]
Deliverance from Egypt Forgiveness of sins (Mt 26:28)
Blood of Passover Lamb Blood of Christ (our Passover, 1 Cor 5:7; the lamb of God, Jn 1:29, 35)
Interpretation of elements Interpretation of elements
Call for continual celebration Call for continual celebration
IVP Dictionary of Jesus & the Gospels, R. H. Stein
III. What is the meaning of this meal?
a. There are echoes of Jesus’ previous activity in this meal.
i. John 6:31-35; 48-58
ii. The cleansing of the Temple belongs here. John 2:15
b. There are variants in this meal from the Passover pattern.
i. He passed a single cup.
ii. He explained his own prophetic role through this meal.
iii. He presented bread to them, rather than lamb.
c. Jesus is offering himself as the fulfillment of Passover.
i. That night in Egypt, death was all-pervasive: every home had either a dead son or a dead lamb.
1. Death of a lamb did NOT exempt the household from judgment.
2. That death looked forward to the appropriate sacrifice of an ideal human and an eternal being.
ii. He is the bread of life.
1. No mention of lamb in this narrative of the Passover meal?
2. Keller: The lamb wasn’t on the table; he was AT the table.
3. John the Baptist introduced him: BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD!
4. Substitutionary redemption.
iii. He offers his blood as a new covenant.
Thus: JESUS SHOWED HIMSELF AS A NEW AND GREATER EXODUS from slavery and a means to RETURN to the dwelling-place of God.
IV. What might happen if we were to share this meal in faith?
a. By faith…that Jesus was and is the Lamb of God.
Jesus now claims to be the “new and greater” manna sent by the father from heaven!
Questions: How is it that we ‘proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’ by taking this meal? What does that mean? Why is it essential that we take the meal in faith? In what sense is this an expression of faith?
b. With Jesus…at the table.
Tim Keller: among all the religious founders of world history, only Jesus died alone, naked, abandoned by all friends. Who would have found that compelling? And yet, his life and his followers have changed the course of history. His death proved to be a transforming power in their lives and can be in yours.
c. With one another…in unity.
The sacrifice of the animal atones for the sin of the people, the blood sprinkled on the doorframes purifies those within, and the eating of the sacrificial meat sanctifies those who consume it. By participating in the Passover ritual the people consecrate themselves as a nation holy to God (cf. Ex 19:6).
d. Regularly…as if our very lives depended upon it.
e. Hopefully…
Questions: How have these passages from the Bible impacted your understanding of the Lord’s Supper/Communion? How is one qualified to take this meal? Are you prepared to enjoy this meal with Jesus/of Jesus?
Apr 5th Good Friday: Barabbas Adam Brown
Apr 8th Meals: Breakfast on the Beach Lane Fusilier
[resurrection required!]
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Young Earth implications
Jenn,
Lots of problems with the young earth position. The appearance of age in a human is not one of them! However, the length of time it takes for light to travel across the universe is a little more difficult issue. Why would God create a universe so broad that it appears to take millions of years for light to travel to us? Perhaps he could have designed a smaller universe where the light emanated from stars so close that it might take a week, month, or a year to travel to our eyes. As we measure the light that IS, though, it appears to have been traveling for millions of years. Odd if the universe were created with light in passage, simultaneous with the creation of the stars which might appear to have been the source of that light.
The more difficult issue for me, though, as I struggle with this, is the existence of skeletal remains/fossils that would necessarily have been created with the rest of the world, say 10,000 years ago. That would require that we have fossils, remains, of animals that never lived?
Lane
Lots of problems with the young earth position. The appearance of age in a human is not one of them! However, the length of time it takes for light to travel across the universe is a little more difficult issue. Why would God create a universe so broad that it appears to take millions of years for light to travel to us? Perhaps he could have designed a smaller universe where the light emanated from stars so close that it might take a week, month, or a year to travel to our eyes. As we measure the light that IS, though, it appears to have been traveling for millions of years. Odd if the universe were created with light in passage, simultaneous with the creation of the stars which might appear to have been the source of that light.
The more difficult issue for me, though, as I struggle with this, is the existence of skeletal remains/fossils that would necessarily have been created with the rest of the world, say 10,000 years ago. That would require that we have fossils, remains, of animals that never lived?
Lane
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
URLs done
Okay, I'm done with the urls for this topic. Hope that you find the reading stimulating and challenging. I have attempted to present multiple options and views on each topic. I have annotated about one quarter of the urls in my collection. If you want the remainder, then request it and I will send you an email with all the urls, without annotation.
I hope to hear back from those who have further questions.
Please understand that these issues are all hot and unresolved in my mind! I have held all four of the positions in this order: 1) naturalistic materialism, 2) Young Earth Creationist, 3) Intelligent Design, 4) Old Earth Creationist. My current interest in this realm is the nature of the stories of Genesis 1 & 2. I will keep you "posted" as I continue this study.
Lane
I hope to hear back from those who have further questions.
Please understand that these issues are all hot and unresolved in my mind! I have held all four of the positions in this order: 1) naturalistic materialism, 2) Young Earth Creationist, 3) Intelligent Design, 4) Old Earth Creationist. My current interest in this realm is the nature of the stories of Genesis 1 & 2. I will keep you "posted" as I continue this study.
Lane
Probe Ministries as a resource
This particular webpage is full of links to creationist issues. Probe Ministries is Dallas-based and DTS-influenced. Lots of helpful apologetics material, far beyond the creation debate.
Follow the link to the main page and bookmark that page, too.
Lane
Follow the link to the main page and bookmark that page, too.
Lane
Institute for Creation Research
This website can serve as a portal into the Young Earth creationist orbit. You'll find lots of links to pursue, according to your interest.
This is the group that started me thinking about these issues forty years ago.
Lane
This is the group that started me thinking about these issues forty years ago.
Lane
Hugh Ross
This is the website of Hugh Ross, who leads "Reasons To Believe".
Thoughtful and thought-provoking.
Canadian content!!
Lane
Thoughtful and thought-provoking.
Canadian content!!
Lane
JP Moreland
This is a series of three articles addressing the same issue as above (the possibility of considering creation science as science), only on a simpler, more lay-friendly level.
Lane
Lane
Creation Science is Science
This article, published in the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, is JP Moreland's defense of creation science (whether old earth or young earth) as science. JP is an important contributor to this debate. His degrees in chemistry, theology and philosophy prepared him to raise such an argument.
JP and I were classmates at Dallas Seminary; he is now a professor of philosophy at Talbot Seminary (Louie Talbot was senior pastor of Philpott Church some time ago).
Interesting argument.
Lane
JP and I were classmates at Dallas Seminary; he is now a professor of philosophy at Talbot Seminary (Louie Talbot was senior pastor of Philpott Church some time ago).
Interesting argument.
Lane
Christian Scientists
This brief essay is reflective of Alvin Plantinga's influence on one scientist.
Beyond that, it links you to the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization representative of many Christian scientists.
Lane
Beyond that, it links you to the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization representative of many Christian scientists.
Lane
Affiliation of Christian Geologists
Had to post this site for the label alone!! "Christian Geologists"
The essay is quite stimulating itself.
Lane
The essay is quite stimulating itself.
Lane
The Faith of Great Scientists
One of the contact points to follow up on Harold Laser's survey of scientists in the past who held Christian faith.
You might understand why I would be so excited about the site itself, given its 'location.'
Lane
You might understand why I would be so excited about the site itself, given its 'location.'
Lane
Hard Questions about God
I think this link came from Harold Laser' collection. I blended Harold's list with my own, so I'm not sure.
This essay is a helpful list of the common questions asked by unbelievers, along with a quick stab at an answer.
The more important point is that the site is valuable. LeaderU is sponsored by Campus for Christ, so it leans heavily toward William Lane Craig's philosophy, for example. It's a good resource, do a little browsing and bookmark pages that stimulate your thought.
Lane
This essay is a helpful list of the common questions asked by unbelievers, along with a quick stab at an answer.
The more important point is that the site is valuable. LeaderU is sponsored by Campus for Christ, so it leans heavily toward William Lane Craig's philosophy, for example. It's a good resource, do a little browsing and bookmark pages that stimulate your thought.
Lane
Book Reviews & Richard Dawkins
I mentioned my typical reading pattern, beginning with scanning the good book reviews available. This is an excellent source: The New York Review of Books.
[note: this is NOT the New York Times Book Review, though that is well thought of. I find both helpful]
Once you've bookmarked the page, you might gain some insight into Dawkins from this particular review.
Lane
[note: this is NOT the New York Times Book Review, though that is well thought of. I find both helpful]
Once you've bookmarked the page, you might gain some insight into Dawkins from this particular review.
Lane
How did this all get started?
Wired Magazine is the place I watch for cultural trends. If Time Magazine places an idea on its cover, it's almost always some time after Wired has raised the issue.
Once Wired published a cover article on the topic, I knew that it would expand broadly. Looking over the congregation and our community, I was convinced that the conflict between modernism and post-modernism experienced by our high school students and university students would grow in impact on our community at large.
I believe that we will need to grow more and more effective at addressing these issues. These three presentations were merely a 'heads-up.' The most important thing that happened after raising the subject was the panel discussion on Sunday, March 18th. That offered the congregation opportunity to interact with professional scientists who have struggled and continue to struggle with these issues.
I also believe that any progress made in these matters will come as a result of such interactions, not only in public-panel format, but in blogs, emails, sponsored conferences, etc.
You can help by continuing to ask questions and to make suggestions.
This particular article in Wired will highlight some of the key issues.
Lane
Once Wired published a cover article on the topic, I knew that it would expand broadly. Looking over the congregation and our community, I was convinced that the conflict between modernism and post-modernism experienced by our high school students and university students would grow in impact on our community at large.
I believe that we will need to grow more and more effective at addressing these issues. These three presentations were merely a 'heads-up.' The most important thing that happened after raising the subject was the panel discussion on Sunday, March 18th. That offered the congregation opportunity to interact with professional scientists who have struggled and continue to struggle with these issues.
I also believe that any progress made in these matters will come as a result of such interactions, not only in public-panel format, but in blogs, emails, sponsored conferences, etc.
You can help by continuing to ask questions and to make suggestions.
This particular article in Wired will highlight some of the key issues.
Lane
A great resource for philosophy
You may be sick of Thomas Kuhn by now, but I'm posting this url to let you know about the resource itself. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has been quite helpful to me as a place to find quick summaries and extended reviews. It is difficult to remember all the philosophers, all the schools of philosophy, and all the various iterations of their views (cf. Wittgenstein, for example!) over their careers. This keeps me on track.
I also use the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but that is on paper; this gives quicker, public access to all.
Lane
I also use the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but that is on paper; this gives quicker, public access to all.
Lane
Review of Francis Collins & Tom Wright
This new review was well-timed! The reviewer is a physics prof at Swarthmore; she highlights the Christian testimony of Francis Collins, one of the reference points in Sunday's panel discussion; she contrasts Tom Wright's Simply Christian take on similar issues.
Hope you find that stimulating!!
Lane
Hope you find that stimulating!!
Lane
Presentation Notes from Creation vs Evolution
Here are my notes from this last presentation...
Creation vs. Evolution?
Review:
1. Science, not scientism (philosophies of science have raised difficult challenges for those who express science as a religious passion, ‘scientism’). Both science and Christian philosophy have challenges to face, which we covered in week one.
2. Richard Dawkins, as a leading proponent of materialistic naturalism, was taken to task:
a. The “real world” can be explained without the help of a deity.
b. The cause (he wants to say most, if not all) of human problems is rooted in religious beliefs.
c. Religious beliefs are internally inconsistent and cannot be reconciled with evolutionary biology or science generally.
In an interview in the New York Times in 1999, Richard Dawkins… "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
d. The world would be a better place without religious beliefs.
e. Dawkins, along with Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris: we might consider prohibiting parents from teaching their children religious superstitions. [This is the sort of threat that gains the attention of people of faith!]
Today
I. Creation vs. Evolution: four positions
a. Naturalistic Materialist: Dawkins/Gould/Dennett, etc.—
I would dismiss this based on the awkward position of atheism, which is difficult to support logically. See the blog for references.
b. Old Earth Creationist—these are often labeled ‘compromising evangelicals’ by some Young Earth proponents.
c. Young Earth Creationist—questions legitimacy of geologic data,
d. Intelligent Design
Let’s look at the text, then…
e. The story in Genesis 1
Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen. 1:2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.
Gen. 1:3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light!
Gen. 1:4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen. 1:5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day. [NET Bible]
a. What does it say?
i. In the beginning: before time, we understand, God started with creating ex nihilo
John Sailhamer: Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Genesis
The term “beginning” (re’shith ) in biblical Hebrew marks a starting point of a specific duration as in “the beginning of the year” (re’shit hashshanah)
By commencing this history with a “beginning” (re’shith), a word often paired with its antonym “end” (‘aha rith ), the author has not only commenced a history of God and his people, he has also prepared the way for the consummation of that history at “the end of time” (‘aharit )
In the beginning: timeless period or just a point in time?
ii. God created: a personal deity, personally involved in the creation Himself
iii. The heavens and the earth: all we can see and beyond
iv. Etc. YOU DO THE WORK!
b. What does it not say?
i. How this came to be, other than by the spoken word of God.
ii. No other mechanism is mentioned or suggested.
iii. Etc. YOU DO THE WORK!
c. What does it mean?
i. God existed before the heavens and the earth.
ii. God created all things in the universe.
iii. God supersedes the heavens and the earth: he is eternal, that which is created is not.
iv. These same phrases are used to describe the end of all things.
v. Etc. YOU DO THE WORK!
Sailhamer
The fundamental principle reflected in Genesis 1:1 and the prophetic vision of the times of the end in the rest of Scripture is that the “last things will be like the first things” (Ernst Boklen, Die Verwandtschaft der judisch-christlichen mit der Parsischen Eschatologie [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902], p. 136): “Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth” (Isa 65:17); “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev 21:1). The allusions to Genesis 1 and 2 in Revelation 22 illustrate the role these early chapters of Genesis played in shaping the form and content of the scriptural vision of the future (‘aharit hayyamim ).
f. The problem of definition
a. Some say that we can’t resolve these differences…
i. Evolution is logically possible.
Plantinga’s article: Faith and Evolution [previously posted on my blog]
“It is possible (epistemically possible) that this is how things happened; God could have done it that way; but the evidence is ambiguous. That it is possible is clear; that it happened is doubtful; that it is certain, however, is ridiculous.”
ii. Question: is evolution biologically possible?
1. Assumed by a large majority of biologists.
2. Difficult to prove
a. Experimentally
b. Missing transitional examples in the fossil record.
Evolution News
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/one_step_forward_two_steps_bac.html
Authority Jennifer Clack even admits that before finding Tiktaalik, the large morphological gap between fish and true tetrapods was "frustratingly wide":
"It has long been clear that limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from osteolepiform lobefinned fishes, but until recently the morphological gap between the two groups remained frustratingly wide. The gap was bounded at the top by primitive Devonian tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega from Greenland, and at the bottom by Panderichthys, a tetrapod-like predatory fish from the latest Middle Devonian of Latvia (Fig. 1)."
(Jennifer A. Clack & Per Erik Ahlberg, "A firm step from water to land," Nature 440:747-749 (April 6, 2006); emphasis added)
c. Probability arguments bite back.
b. We cannot deny reason or its importance, lest we deny our ability to understand, sort, and interpret Scripture!
Plantinga: The Lord can't make a mistake: fair enough; but we can. Our grasp of what the Lord proposes to teach us can be faulty and flawed in a thousand ways. This is obvious, if only because of the widespread disagreement among serious Christians as to just what it is the Lord does propose for our belief in one or another portion of Scripture. Scripture is indeed perspicuous: what it teaches with respect to the way of salvation is indeed such that she who runs may read. It is also clear, however, that serious, well-intentioned Christians can disagree as to what the teaching of Scripture, at one point or another, really is. Scripture is inerrant: the Lord makes no mistakes; what he proposes for our belief is what we ought to believe. Sadly enough, however, our grasp of what he proposes to teach is fallible.
c. Can A Darwinist Be A Christian?
i. Yes
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/march/37.74.html
Stan Guthrie | posted 3/12/2007 09:05AM
Certainly millions of Christians—including the late John Paul II—have believed in both evolution and God without apparent spiritual harm. They say evolution is the method God used to create us. Francis Collins, who heads the Human Genome Project, is one of them.
"The evidence mounts every day to support the concept that we and all other organisms on this planet are descended from a common ancestor," Collins told me. "When you look at the digital data that backs that up—which is what DNA provides—it is extremely difficult to come to any other conclusion. There are many things written within our instruction book that not only tell us how we function but also represent DNA fossils left over from previous events. And those fossils, in many instances, are found in other species in the same place, in the same way. Unless you're going to propose that God placed them there intentionally to mislead us, which does not fit with my image of God as the Almighty Creator, then I think one is, like it or not, forced to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is really no longer a theory in the sense of being untested. It is a theory in the sense of gravity. It is a fact."
ii. No
This is the position of Young Earth proponents. The argument is that Genesis 1 describes a six-day creation history, precluding 4.5 billion years of evolution, or even 1,000 years. Historically, this has been the position of most Christian scholarship, until 1859, when Darwin published On The Origin of Species. Since that time, scientists began to rethink their commitments to a six-day creation (as most had embraced) and theologians became quite confused.
iii. Maybe
Many conservative theologians have moved to an ‘agnostic’ position on this matter, refusing to take a stand.
d. Evolution
i. Agreements with Gen 1-2
ii. Disagreements with Gen 1-2
1. The problem of six days of creation.
2. The sense of divine fiat, expressed by the spoken word of God with no hint of processes or means.
3. The problem of death: Genesis 1-2 seem to imply that death did not enter the world until after Adam and Eve sinned. The entire fossil record presented by evolutionists would argue that death had been common to all creatures before “Adam and Eve” whenever they might have lived.
iii. Essence of Genesis 1-2
1. The state of interpretation regarding Genesis 1-2 is quite complex.
2. A large majority of biblical scholars read Genesis as if it were legendary, not historical.
3. A small minority of conservative scholars hold that the two accounts are historical and literal.
4. A growing number understand that the stories are told in a certain style, conforming to (but varying from) similar creation accounts from that era and earlier. Their questions target ‘genre’ issues: how was this story intended and how should it be understood? Those questions were asked long ago by liberal scholars, but are now being reprocessed by more conservative theologians.
5. John Sailhamer has proposed something of a middle position: the creation account of Genesis 1 introduces the arrival of Eden. Gen. 1:1 is true of the universe, 1:2 and following describe the preparation of the land of promise. He suggests that Eden’s Garden may well have been on Mt. Zion.
e. So, if a Christian CAN be an evolutionist (not that that has been demonstrated here!!), are there examples of such?
Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project
Hugh Ross [Canadian, physics at UBC, astronomy at UofT], founder of Reasons To Believe
Creation vs. Evolution?
Review:
1. Science, not scientism (philosophies of science have raised difficult challenges for those who express science as a religious passion, ‘scientism’). Both science and Christian philosophy have challenges to face, which we covered in week one.
2. Richard Dawkins, as a leading proponent of materialistic naturalism, was taken to task:
a. The “real world” can be explained without the help of a deity.
b. The cause (he wants to say most, if not all) of human problems is rooted in religious beliefs.
c. Religious beliefs are internally inconsistent and cannot be reconciled with evolutionary biology or science generally.
In an interview in the New York Times in 1999, Richard Dawkins… "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
d. The world would be a better place without religious beliefs.
e. Dawkins, along with Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris: we might consider prohibiting parents from teaching their children religious superstitions. [This is the sort of threat that gains the attention of people of faith!]
Today
I. Creation vs. Evolution: four positions
a. Naturalistic Materialist: Dawkins/Gould/Dennett, etc.—
I would dismiss this based on the awkward position of atheism, which is difficult to support logically. See the blog for references.
b. Old Earth Creationist—these are often labeled ‘compromising evangelicals’ by some Young Earth proponents.
c. Young Earth Creationist—questions legitimacy of geologic data,
d. Intelligent Design
Let’s look at the text, then…
e. The story in Genesis 1
Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen. 1:2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.
Gen. 1:3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light!
Gen. 1:4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen. 1:5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day. [NET Bible]
a. What does it say?
i. In the beginning: before time, we understand, God started with creating ex nihilo
John Sailhamer: Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Genesis
The term “beginning” (re’shith ) in biblical Hebrew marks a starting point of a specific duration as in “the beginning of the year” (re’shit hashshanah)
By commencing this history with a “beginning” (re’shith), a word often paired with its antonym “end” (‘aha rith ), the author has not only commenced a history of God and his people, he has also prepared the way for the consummation of that history at “the end of time” (‘aharit )
In the beginning: timeless period or just a point in time?
ii. God created: a personal deity, personally involved in the creation Himself
iii. The heavens and the earth: all we can see and beyond
iv. Etc. YOU DO THE WORK!
b. What does it not say?
i. How this came to be, other than by the spoken word of God.
ii. No other mechanism is mentioned or suggested.
iii. Etc. YOU DO THE WORK!
c. What does it mean?
i. God existed before the heavens and the earth.
ii. God created all things in the universe.
iii. God supersedes the heavens and the earth: he is eternal, that which is created is not.
iv. These same phrases are used to describe the end of all things.
v. Etc. YOU DO THE WORK!
Sailhamer
The fundamental principle reflected in Genesis 1:1 and the prophetic vision of the times of the end in the rest of Scripture is that the “last things will be like the first things” (Ernst Boklen, Die Verwandtschaft der judisch-christlichen mit der Parsischen Eschatologie [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902], p. 136): “Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth” (Isa 65:17); “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev 21:1). The allusions to Genesis 1 and 2 in Revelation 22 illustrate the role these early chapters of Genesis played in shaping the form and content of the scriptural vision of the future (‘aharit hayyamim ).
f. The problem of definition
a. Some say that we can’t resolve these differences…
i. Evolution is logically possible.
Plantinga’s article: Faith and Evolution [previously posted on my blog]
“It is possible (epistemically possible) that this is how things happened; God could have done it that way; but the evidence is ambiguous. That it is possible is clear; that it happened is doubtful; that it is certain, however, is ridiculous.”
ii. Question: is evolution biologically possible?
1. Assumed by a large majority of biologists.
2. Difficult to prove
a. Experimentally
b. Missing transitional examples in the fossil record.
Evolution News
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/one_step_forward_two_steps_bac.html
Authority Jennifer Clack even admits that before finding Tiktaalik, the large morphological gap between fish and true tetrapods was "frustratingly wide":
"It has long been clear that limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from osteolepiform lobefinned fishes, but until recently the morphological gap between the two groups remained frustratingly wide. The gap was bounded at the top by primitive Devonian tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega from Greenland, and at the bottom by Panderichthys, a tetrapod-like predatory fish from the latest Middle Devonian of Latvia (Fig. 1)."
(Jennifer A. Clack & Per Erik Ahlberg, "A firm step from water to land," Nature 440:747-749 (April 6, 2006); emphasis added)
c. Probability arguments bite back.
b. We cannot deny reason or its importance, lest we deny our ability to understand, sort, and interpret Scripture!
Plantinga: The Lord can't make a mistake: fair enough; but we can. Our grasp of what the Lord proposes to teach us can be faulty and flawed in a thousand ways. This is obvious, if only because of the widespread disagreement among serious Christians as to just what it is the Lord does propose for our belief in one or another portion of Scripture. Scripture is indeed perspicuous: what it teaches with respect to the way of salvation is indeed such that she who runs may read. It is also clear, however, that serious, well-intentioned Christians can disagree as to what the teaching of Scripture, at one point or another, really is. Scripture is inerrant: the Lord makes no mistakes; what he proposes for our belief is what we ought to believe. Sadly enough, however, our grasp of what he proposes to teach is fallible.
c. Can A Darwinist Be A Christian?
i. Yes
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/march/37.74.html
Stan Guthrie | posted 3/12/2007 09:05AM
Certainly millions of Christians—including the late John Paul II—have believed in both evolution and God without apparent spiritual harm. They say evolution is the method God used to create us. Francis Collins, who heads the Human Genome Project, is one of them.
"The evidence mounts every day to support the concept that we and all other organisms on this planet are descended from a common ancestor," Collins told me. "When you look at the digital data that backs that up—which is what DNA provides—it is extremely difficult to come to any other conclusion. There are many things written within our instruction book that not only tell us how we function but also represent DNA fossils left over from previous events. And those fossils, in many instances, are found in other species in the same place, in the same way. Unless you're going to propose that God placed them there intentionally to mislead us, which does not fit with my image of God as the Almighty Creator, then I think one is, like it or not, forced to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is really no longer a theory in the sense of being untested. It is a theory in the sense of gravity. It is a fact."
ii. No
This is the position of Young Earth proponents. The argument is that Genesis 1 describes a six-day creation history, precluding 4.5 billion years of evolution, or even 1,000 years. Historically, this has been the position of most Christian scholarship, until 1859, when Darwin published On The Origin of Species. Since that time, scientists began to rethink their commitments to a six-day creation (as most had embraced) and theologians became quite confused.
iii. Maybe
Many conservative theologians have moved to an ‘agnostic’ position on this matter, refusing to take a stand.
d. Evolution
i. Agreements with Gen 1-2
ii. Disagreements with Gen 1-2
1. The problem of six days of creation.
2. The sense of divine fiat, expressed by the spoken word of God with no hint of processes or means.
3. The problem of death: Genesis 1-2 seem to imply that death did not enter the world until after Adam and Eve sinned. The entire fossil record presented by evolutionists would argue that death had been common to all creatures before “Adam and Eve” whenever they might have lived.
iii. Essence of Genesis 1-2
1. The state of interpretation regarding Genesis 1-2 is quite complex.
2. A large majority of biblical scholars read Genesis as if it were legendary, not historical.
3. A small minority of conservative scholars hold that the two accounts are historical and literal.
4. A growing number understand that the stories are told in a certain style, conforming to (but varying from) similar creation accounts from that era and earlier. Their questions target ‘genre’ issues: how was this story intended and how should it be understood? Those questions were asked long ago by liberal scholars, but are now being reprocessed by more conservative theologians.
5. John Sailhamer has proposed something of a middle position: the creation account of Genesis 1 introduces the arrival of Eden. Gen. 1:1 is true of the universe, 1:2 and following describe the preparation of the land of promise. He suggests that Eden’s Garden may well have been on Mt. Zion.
e. So, if a Christian CAN be an evolutionist (not that that has been demonstrated here!!), are there examples of such?
Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project
Hugh Ross [Canadian, physics at UBC, astronomy at UofT], founder of Reasons To Believe
Thursday, March 15, 2007
The argument against Naturalism defeated
This is a review of the book "Naturalism Defeated?", edited by James Beilby. The book is a critical response to Plantinga's argument against naturalism, based on evolutionary premises.
My typical approach to reading a book that is technical is to find critical reviews, read the reviews, then read the author's response to the reviews, then read the book. It prevents me from reading many books, but tends to help me digest the argument of that particular book or essay more substantially. That also forces me to read IMPORTANT books and essays, rather than unimportant ones, because it takes much more time to read a particular book!
The book under review here is a response by philosophers against an argument that Plantinga included in a few paragraphs in one of his books, then followed up on in essay form.
The depth of response gives you some idea of how widely Plantinga is read!
My typical approach to reading a book that is technical is to find critical reviews, read the reviews, then read the author's response to the reviews, then read the book. It prevents me from reading many books, but tends to help me digest the argument of that particular book or essay more substantially. That also forces me to read IMPORTANT books and essays, rather than unimportant ones, because it takes much more time to read a particular book!
The book under review here is a response by philosophers against an argument that Plantinga included in a few paragraphs in one of his books, then followed up on in essay form.
The depth of response gives you some idea of how widely Plantinga is read!
Plantinga on Faith & Evolution
This particular essay was published in Christian Scholar's Review, then posted on the web. It is sixteen years old but quite fresh.
If you read this before March 18, you will have a good grounding for my presentation.
This is longer than the previous essay I recommended, some 27 pages in a Word file, but worth your time if you are serious about the topic.
If you read this before March 18, you will have a good grounding for my presentation.
This is longer than the previous essay I recommended, some 27 pages in a Word file, but worth your time if you are serious about the topic.
Planting's Papers
This webpage offers a number of essays by Alvin Plantinga, including one of my favorites, his argument from evolution against naturalism. His audacity is breathtaking. Read several for a good introduction to his style of argument and the potential stretching your thinking!
Introduction to Alvin Plantinga
This link will take you to a brief essay by Plantinga. The introduction gives his academic credentials.
The essay itself is a sketch of an argument considering the rationality of theism, in response to a typical atheist argument.
This is typical of Plantinga's style, though he is often more playful in his use of analogies and illustrations.
The essay itself is a sketch of an argument considering the rationality of theism, in response to a typical atheist argument.
This is typical of Plantinga's style, though he is often more playful in his use of analogies and illustrations.
Monday, March 12, 2007
A Case of Theism vs Atheism
A Case of Theism vs. Atheism
Alan Jacobs: Thus the opening line of Terry Eagleton's response, in the London Review of Books, to Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
Caveat from Alan Jacobs
… The first notable atheists and agnostics, the nineteenth-century critics of Christianity in England and America, were raised in largely Christian cultures and knew, often in considerable detail, the contours of the faith they were opposing. This made them more forceful arguers and more effective debaters, even if it also made them more vulnerable to the power and beauty of the Christian message…
But today's polemical skeptics not only lack adequate knowledge of Christianity or of other religions, they're apparently unaware that such knowledge would be to their advantage.
So, how do we respond to such terminal silliness?
Carefully:
Da Vinci Code is long forgotten.
The Jesus Family Tomb special on Discovery Channel last weekend brought guffaws from secular archaeologists: “bad archaeology, good TV.”
Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion will soon be forgotten as an angry polemic.
However, it can serve us an learning device for dealing with secular claims about the existence of God and the story of Jesus.
Remember…
I. “Taking Every Thought Captive.”
II. Dawkins’ God, March 11th
a. Richard Dawkins, atheist.
i. Position at Oxford University.
Professor of the Public Understanding of Science
ii. Background and reputation.
1. Ethologist, zoology: animal behaviour
2. Evolutionary biologist
3. Memes: made popular the notion of transferred behaviours, following the model of transferred genetic material.
4. Wikipedia: In a play on Thomas Huxley's epithet "Darwin's bulldog", Dawkins' impassioned defence of evolution has earned him the appellation "Darwin's rottweiler".
5. In February 2007, Dawkins admitted that the term "delusional" does not fairly characterise this category of belief.
iii. Best known books.
1. The Selfish Gene
2. The Blind Watchmaker
iv. Dawkins’ most recent work: The God Delusion
1. Argument of the book.
a. The Sunday Times, 19 Nov 06: “The enlightenment is under threat,” Dawkins said. “So is reason. So is truth. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organised ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity.”
2. Reaction:
a. Some believers just ignore what’s going on in works like this.
b. Some Christians seem fearful, too fearful to read.
Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’
c. Some scientists: he’s a fundamentalist.
The Sunday Times, November 19, 2006
Dawkins’s approach has also offended fellow scientists. Steven Rose, emeritus professor of biology at the Open University, said: “I worry that Richard’s view about belief is too simplistic, and so hostile that as a committed secularist myself I am uneasy about it. We need to recognise that our own science also depends on certain assumptions about the way the world is — assumptions that he and I of course share.”
d. Alister McGrath: point by point refutation; fuller treatment of atheism generally.
i. Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life
ii. The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World
Convinced that the scientific discoveries of their day could be harnessed to serve the needs of the church, Descartes and his colleagues abandoned any appeal to religious experience in their defense of their faith. The secure proofs of religion lay in philosophy and the natural sciences—in the reasoning of this world rather than the intrusion of the next. Philosophy alone could establish the necessity and plausibility of the Christian faith.
With the benefit of hindsight, this was not a particularly wise strategy. The English experience suggested that nobody really doubted the existence of God until theologians tried to prove it. The very modest success of these proofs led many to wonder if God[‘s existence was quite as self-evident as they had once thought.
…Historically, it can be shown that arguments used by French atheists against religion in the late eighteenth century were borrowed from religious writers who had previously sought to eliminate atheism.
This hitherto unprecedented denial of God developed out of the very strategies employed to defend Christianity a century earlier. Descartes and his colleagues prposed that a perfect divine being was the best explanation of the universe. Yet by doing so, they opened the way to the response that the universe was perfectly capable of explaining itself, and they also heightened awareness of one of the Christian faith’s greatest vulnerabilities—the problem of evil. If God is supremely perfect, who do suffering and pain exist, causing such distress to humanity? One of Descartes’ most significant achievements was to make what had hitherto been a practical issue of Christian spirituality (how can I cope with suffering?) into a disconfirmation of the faith. How could anyone believe in a perfect divine being, when the world was so clearly imperfect?
3. Terry Eagleton’s response.
Times Literary Supplement: a review of The God Delusion
… Dawkins rejects the surely reasonable case that science and religion are not in competition on the grounds that this insulates religion from rational inquiry. But this is a mistake:…It is rather to claim that while faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it.
…Such is Dawkins’s unruffled scientific impartiality that in a book of almost four hundred pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false. The countless millions who have devoted their lives selflessly to the service of others in the name of Christ or Buddha or Allah are wiped from human history – and this by a self-appointed crusader against bigotry. He is like a man who equates socialism with the Gulag.
… There is a very English brand of common sense that believes mostly in what it can touch, weigh and taste, and The God Delusion springs from, among other places, that particular stable.
Terry Eagleton is John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at Manchester University. His latest book is How to Read a Poem.
4. Alvin Plantinga’s refutation.
a. Dawkins’ argument
Alvin Plantinga, John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, in Books & Culture, March/April 2007.
The basic idea is that anything that knows and can do what God knows and can do would have to be incredibly complex. In particular, anything that can create or design something must be at least as complex as the thing it can design or create. Putting it another way, Dawkins says a designer must contain at least as much information as what it creates or designs, and information is inversely related to probability. Therefore, he thinks, God would have to be monumentally complex, hence astronomically improbable; thus it is almost certain that God does not exist.
But why does Dawkins think God is complex? And why does he think that the more complex something is, the less probable it is?
The premise he argues for is something like this:
1. We know of no irrefutable objections to its being biologically possible that all of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes;
and Dawkins supports that premise by trying to refute objections to its being biologically possible that life has come to be that way. His conclusion, however, is
2. All of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes.
It's worth meditating, if only for a moment, on the striking distance, here, between premise and conclusion. The premise tells us, substantially, that there are no irrefutable objections to its being possible that unguided evolution has produced all of the wonders of the living world; the conclusion is that it is true that unguided evolution has indeed produced all of those wonders. The argument form seems to be something like
We know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that p;
Therefore
p is true.
Philosophers sometimes propound invalid arguments (I've propounded a few myself); few of those arguments display the truly colossal distance between premise and conclusion sported by this one. I come into the departmental office and announce to the chairman that the dean has just authorized a $50,000 raise for me; naturally he wants to know why I think so. I tell him that we know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that the dean has done that. My guess is he'd gently suggest that it is high time for me to retire.
you can't establish something as a fact by showing that objections to its possibility fail, and adding that it is very probable.)
b. The “defeater” in the argument
Like most naturalists, Dawkins is a materialist about human beings: human persons are material objects; they are not immaterial selves or souls or substances joined to a body, and they don't contain any immaterial substance as a part. From this point of view, our beliefs would be dependent on neurophysiology, and (no doubt) a belief would just be a neurological structure of some complex kind. Now the neurophysiology on which our beliefs depend will doubtless be adaptive; but why think for a moment that the beliefs dependent on or caused by that neurophysiology will be mostly true? Why think our cognitive faculties are reliable?
From a theistic point of view, we'd expect that our cognitive faculties would be (for the most part, and given certain qualifications and caveats) reliable. God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge. But from a naturalist point of view the thought that our cognitive faculties are reliable (produce a preponderance of true beliefs) would be at best a naïve hope. The naturalist can be reasonably sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive, but nothing follows about the truth of the beliefs depending on that neurophysiology. In fact he'd have to hold that it is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable. It's as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world.
If this is so, the naturalist has a defeater for the natural assumption that his cognitive faculties are reliable—a reason for rejecting that belief, for no longer holding it. (Example of a defeater: suppose someone once told me that you were born in Michigan and I believed her; but now I ask you, and you tell me you were born in Brazil. That gives me a defeater for my belief that you were born in Michigan.) And if he has a defeater for that belief, he also has a defeater for any belief that is a product of his cognitive faculties. But of course that would be all of his beliefs—including naturalism itself. So the naturalist has a defeater for naturalism; natural- ism, therefore, is self-defeating and cannot be rationally believed.
c. Good science
Considers its’ evidence, tests to support and extend its’ proposals or hypotheses, and settles for limited results.
Considers it’s unexplained analomies, rethinks the paradigm, and searches for a new paradigm that will include all known phenomena. We know the names of those few who are able to make those conceptual leaps: Newton, Copernicus, Einstein.
b. Application: II Corinthians 10:5
i. We hope we have understood Scripture.
ii. We have thought carefully about our world, rather than avoiding the point of attack.
Martin Luther: if we have not responded at the point of attack, we are not in the war.
iii. We have taken thoughts captive, NOT PEOPLE
1. Godly impulse: deal with strongholds.
2. Fallen impulse: love things/use people, control people/manage ideas.
III. Evolution vs. Creation, March 18th, followed by panel discussion over lunch
Alan Jacobs: Thus the opening line of Terry Eagleton's response, in the London Review of Books, to Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
Caveat from Alan Jacobs
… The first notable atheists and agnostics, the nineteenth-century critics of Christianity in England and America, were raised in largely Christian cultures and knew, often in considerable detail, the contours of the faith they were opposing. This made them more forceful arguers and more effective debaters, even if it also made them more vulnerable to the power and beauty of the Christian message…
But today's polemical skeptics not only lack adequate knowledge of Christianity or of other religions, they're apparently unaware that such knowledge would be to their advantage.
So, how do we respond to such terminal silliness?
Carefully:
Da Vinci Code is long forgotten.
The Jesus Family Tomb special on Discovery Channel last weekend brought guffaws from secular archaeologists: “bad archaeology, good TV.”
Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion will soon be forgotten as an angry polemic.
However, it can serve us an learning device for dealing with secular claims about the existence of God and the story of Jesus.
Remember…
I. “Taking Every Thought Captive.”
II. Dawkins’ God, March 11th
a. Richard Dawkins, atheist.
i. Position at Oxford University.
Professor of the Public Understanding of Science
ii. Background and reputation.
1. Ethologist, zoology: animal behaviour
2. Evolutionary biologist
3. Memes: made popular the notion of transferred behaviours, following the model of transferred genetic material.
4. Wikipedia: In a play on Thomas Huxley's epithet "Darwin's bulldog", Dawkins' impassioned defence of evolution has earned him the appellation "Darwin's rottweiler".
5. In February 2007, Dawkins admitted that the term "delusional" does not fairly characterise this category of belief.
iii. Best known books.
1. The Selfish Gene
2. The Blind Watchmaker
iv. Dawkins’ most recent work: The God Delusion
1. Argument of the book.
a. The Sunday Times, 19 Nov 06: “The enlightenment is under threat,” Dawkins said. “So is reason. So is truth. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organised ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity.”
2. Reaction:
a. Some believers just ignore what’s going on in works like this.
b. Some Christians seem fearful, too fearful to read.
Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’
c. Some scientists: he’s a fundamentalist.
The Sunday Times, November 19, 2006
Dawkins’s approach has also offended fellow scientists. Steven Rose, emeritus professor of biology at the Open University, said: “I worry that Richard’s view about belief is too simplistic, and so hostile that as a committed secularist myself I am uneasy about it. We need to recognise that our own science also depends on certain assumptions about the way the world is — assumptions that he and I of course share.”
d. Alister McGrath: point by point refutation; fuller treatment of atheism generally.
i. Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life
ii. The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World
Convinced that the scientific discoveries of their day could be harnessed to serve the needs of the church, Descartes and his colleagues abandoned any appeal to religious experience in their defense of their faith. The secure proofs of religion lay in philosophy and the natural sciences—in the reasoning of this world rather than the intrusion of the next. Philosophy alone could establish the necessity and plausibility of the Christian faith.
With the benefit of hindsight, this was not a particularly wise strategy. The English experience suggested that nobody really doubted the existence of God until theologians tried to prove it. The very modest success of these proofs led many to wonder if God[‘s existence was quite as self-evident as they had once thought.
…Historically, it can be shown that arguments used by French atheists against religion in the late eighteenth century were borrowed from religious writers who had previously sought to eliminate atheism.
This hitherto unprecedented denial of God developed out of the very strategies employed to defend Christianity a century earlier. Descartes and his colleagues prposed that a perfect divine being was the best explanation of the universe. Yet by doing so, they opened the way to the response that the universe was perfectly capable of explaining itself, and they also heightened awareness of one of the Christian faith’s greatest vulnerabilities—the problem of evil. If God is supremely perfect, who do suffering and pain exist, causing such distress to humanity? One of Descartes’ most significant achievements was to make what had hitherto been a practical issue of Christian spirituality (how can I cope with suffering?) into a disconfirmation of the faith. How could anyone believe in a perfect divine being, when the world was so clearly imperfect?
3. Terry Eagleton’s response.
Times Literary Supplement: a review of The God Delusion
… Dawkins rejects the surely reasonable case that science and religion are not in competition on the grounds that this insulates religion from rational inquiry. But this is a mistake:…It is rather to claim that while faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it.
…Such is Dawkins’s unruffled scientific impartiality that in a book of almost four hundred pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false. The countless millions who have devoted their lives selflessly to the service of others in the name of Christ or Buddha or Allah are wiped from human history – and this by a self-appointed crusader against bigotry. He is like a man who equates socialism with the Gulag.
… There is a very English brand of common sense that believes mostly in what it can touch, weigh and taste, and The God Delusion springs from, among other places, that particular stable.
Terry Eagleton is John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at Manchester University. His latest book is How to Read a Poem.
4. Alvin Plantinga’s refutation.
a. Dawkins’ argument
Alvin Plantinga, John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, in Books & Culture, March/April 2007.
The basic idea is that anything that knows and can do what God knows and can do would have to be incredibly complex. In particular, anything that can create or design something must be at least as complex as the thing it can design or create. Putting it another way, Dawkins says a designer must contain at least as much information as what it creates or designs, and information is inversely related to probability. Therefore, he thinks, God would have to be monumentally complex, hence astronomically improbable; thus it is almost certain that God does not exist.
But why does Dawkins think God is complex? And why does he think that the more complex something is, the less probable it is?
The premise he argues for is something like this:
1. We know of no irrefutable objections to its being biologically possible that all of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes;
and Dawkins supports that premise by trying to refute objections to its being biologically possible that life has come to be that way. His conclusion, however, is
2. All of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes.
It's worth meditating, if only for a moment, on the striking distance, here, between premise and conclusion. The premise tells us, substantially, that there are no irrefutable objections to its being possible that unguided evolution has produced all of the wonders of the living world; the conclusion is that it is true that unguided evolution has indeed produced all of those wonders. The argument form seems to be something like
We know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that p;
Therefore
p is true.
Philosophers sometimes propound invalid arguments (I've propounded a few myself); few of those arguments display the truly colossal distance between premise and conclusion sported by this one. I come into the departmental office and announce to the chairman that the dean has just authorized a $50,000 raise for me; naturally he wants to know why I think so. I tell him that we know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that the dean has done that. My guess is he'd gently suggest that it is high time for me to retire.
you can't establish something as a fact by showing that objections to its possibility fail, and adding that it is very probable.)
b. The “defeater” in the argument
Like most naturalists, Dawkins is a materialist about human beings: human persons are material objects; they are not immaterial selves or souls or substances joined to a body, and they don't contain any immaterial substance as a part. From this point of view, our beliefs would be dependent on neurophysiology, and (no doubt) a belief would just be a neurological structure of some complex kind. Now the neurophysiology on which our beliefs depend will doubtless be adaptive; but why think for a moment that the beliefs dependent on or caused by that neurophysiology will be mostly true? Why think our cognitive faculties are reliable?
From a theistic point of view, we'd expect that our cognitive faculties would be (for the most part, and given certain qualifications and caveats) reliable. God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge. But from a naturalist point of view the thought that our cognitive faculties are reliable (produce a preponderance of true beliefs) would be at best a naïve hope. The naturalist can be reasonably sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive, but nothing follows about the truth of the beliefs depending on that neurophysiology. In fact he'd have to hold that it is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable. It's as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world.
If this is so, the naturalist has a defeater for the natural assumption that his cognitive faculties are reliable—a reason for rejecting that belief, for no longer holding it. (Example of a defeater: suppose someone once told me that you were born in Michigan and I believed her; but now I ask you, and you tell me you were born in Brazil. That gives me a defeater for my belief that you were born in Michigan.) And if he has a defeater for that belief, he also has a defeater for any belief that is a product of his cognitive faculties. But of course that would be all of his beliefs—including naturalism itself. So the naturalist has a defeater for naturalism; natural- ism, therefore, is self-defeating and cannot be rationally believed.
c. Good science
Considers its’ evidence, tests to support and extend its’ proposals or hypotheses, and settles for limited results.
Considers it’s unexplained analomies, rethinks the paradigm, and searches for a new paradigm that will include all known phenomena. We know the names of those few who are able to make those conceptual leaps: Newton, Copernicus, Einstein.
b. Application: II Corinthians 10:5
i. We hope we have understood Scripture.
ii. We have thought carefully about our world, rather than avoiding the point of attack.
Martin Luther: if we have not responded at the point of attack, we are not in the war.
iii. We have taken thoughts captive, NOT PEOPLE
1. Godly impulse: deal with strongholds.
2. Fallen impulse: love things/use people, control people/manage ideas.
III. Evolution vs. Creation, March 18th, followed by panel discussion over lunch
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Taking Every Thought Captive
Not a Sermon but a Dialogue: presentation; Q&A; informal chatting; blog
I. “Taking Every Thought Captive.”
a. Introduction
i. Christians are defensive about our faith.
ii. We need not be defensive, we have justifiable faith, “warranted” belief.
iii. We must believe that our faith is credible if we are to commit ourselves to rigorous discipleship.
iv. We can be sure…
1. Our thoughts can matter: today, why Christians should be scientists.
2. Next week: Dawkins’ God, responding to naturalism.
3. Third week: Creation vs. Evolution
b. We are not to be defensive, but assertive in our dialogue with competing world views.
i. Paul said,
2Cor. 10:3 For though we live as human beings, we do not wage war according to human standards,
2Cor. 10:4 for the weapons of our warfare are not human weapons, but are made powerful by God for tearing down strongholds. We tear down arguments
2Cor. 10:5 and every arrogant obstacle that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obey Christ.
ii. Paul meant
1. God has a plan that moves from creation to reconstruction of his world.
2. Humans instinctively deny or thwart that plan.
3. Paul insists that his role and the role of all believers involves dismantling those arguments.
EBC, Murray J. Harris, “refers to any human act or attitude that forms an obstacle to the emancipating knowledge of God contained in the gospel of Christ crucified and therefore keeps men in oppressive bondage to sin. Closely related is the expression pan noema (“every thought”). By this Paul probably means every human machination or foul design that temporarily frustrates the divine plan (cf. “every act of disobedience,” v.6) and so needs forcibly to be reduced to obedience to Christ.”
4. This fits into the larger sweep of the human mandate…
Gen. 1:26 ¶Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
iii. We apply this by…
1. Not being defensive and fearful.
2. Not being mean and Personal,
3. But by thoughtful, reflective dialogue.
c. In the context of the Sciences.
i. We have three realms in competition and conflict.
1. Science
2. Philosophy—skeptical about psychiatry, religion and recently critical of scientism’s naivete.
3. Theology—wonderful history largely obscured by discredited liberalism and extreme fundamentalism.
ii. Scientists’ self-explanations are often confusing and raise barriers between philosophers, theologians and practicing scientists.
1. Some prefer to ignore the other realms.
2. Some insist on a ‘complementarian’ view, emphasizing that each discipline pursues truths in its own realm, and the realms do not overlap.
3. Others believe that truth is truth; Christians have said, “All truth is God’s truth.”
iii. Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions launched a critical rethinking of the philosophy of science.
1. Kuhn earned a Ph.D. in physics from Harvard.
a. While doing his work there, he became more interested in the logical foundations of the practice of science than physics itself.
b. He taught at Berkeley, Princeton and MIT; died of cancer at 73 in the 1990s.
c. He wrote a monograph in the 1940s that was published in 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
i. Essence.
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html
Throughout thirteen succinct but thought-provoking chapters, Kuhn argued that science is not a steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge. Instead, science is "a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions" [Nicholas Wade, writing for Science], which he described as "the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science." After such revolutions, "one conceptual world view is replaced by another" [Wade].
During periods of normal science, the primary task of scientists is to bring the accepted theory and fact into closer agreement. As a consequence, scientists tend to ignore research findings that might threaten the existing paradigm and trigger the development of a new and competing paradigm. For example, Ptolemy popularized the notion that the sun revolves around the earth, and this view was defended for centuries even in the face of conflicting evidence. In the pursuit of science, Kuhn observed, "novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation."
And yet, young scientists who are not so deeply indoctrinated into accepted theories - a Newton, Lavoisier, or Einstein - can manage to sweep an old paradigm away. Such scientific revolutions come only after long periods of tradition-bound normal science, for "frameworks must be lived with and explored before they can be broken." However, crisis is always implicit in research because every problem that normal science sees as a puzzle can be seen, from another perspective, as a counterinstance and thus as a source of crisis. This is the "essential tension" in scientific research.
ii. Content.
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
Normal science "is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like" (5)—scientists take great pains to defend that assumption.
To this end, "normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments" (5).
Research is "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education" (5).
A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly "subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice" (6). These shifts are what Kuhn describes as scientific revolutions—"the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science" (6).
New assumptions (paradigms/theories) require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by the established community.
When a shift takes place, "a scientist's world is qualitatively transformed [and] quantitatively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory" (7).
iii. Bottom line: it is difficult to consider new ways of perceiving the world when focused on a world-view or a paradigm that seems to explain most of the data at hand.
i. Philosophy of science challenges scientists to be more reflective and transparent about their work.
ii. Biblical world view is foundation of the sciences.
b. Applications
i. We are stewards of the earth: we must be “green.”
ii. We are stewards of knowledge: we must be scientists.
iii. We will always struggle to know: we will never fully understand all things.
Prov. 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and it is the glory of a king to search out a matter.
II. Dawkins’ God, March 11th
III. Evolution vs. Creation, March 18th, followed by panel discussion over lunch
I. “Taking Every Thought Captive.”
a. Introduction
i. Christians are defensive about our faith.
ii. We need not be defensive, we have justifiable faith, “warranted” belief.
iii. We must believe that our faith is credible if we are to commit ourselves to rigorous discipleship.
iv. We can be sure…
1. Our thoughts can matter: today, why Christians should be scientists.
2. Next week: Dawkins’ God, responding to naturalism.
3. Third week: Creation vs. Evolution
b. We are not to be defensive, but assertive in our dialogue with competing world views.
i. Paul said,
2Cor. 10:3 For though we live as human beings, we do not wage war according to human standards,
2Cor. 10:4 for the weapons of our warfare are not human weapons, but are made powerful by God for tearing down strongholds. We tear down arguments
2Cor. 10:5 and every arrogant obstacle that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obey Christ.
ii. Paul meant
1. God has a plan that moves from creation to reconstruction of his world.
2. Humans instinctively deny or thwart that plan.
3. Paul insists that his role and the role of all believers involves dismantling those arguments.
EBC, Murray J. Harris, “refers to any human act or attitude that forms an obstacle to the emancipating knowledge of God contained in the gospel of Christ crucified and therefore keeps men in oppressive bondage to sin. Closely related is the expression pan noema (“every thought”). By this Paul probably means every human machination or foul design that temporarily frustrates the divine plan (cf. “every act of disobedience,” v.6) and so needs forcibly to be reduced to obedience to Christ.”
4. This fits into the larger sweep of the human mandate…
Gen. 1:26 ¶Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
iii. We apply this by…
1. Not being defensive and fearful.
2. Not being mean and Personal,
3. But by thoughtful, reflective dialogue.
c. In the context of the Sciences.
i. We have three realms in competition and conflict.
1. Science
2. Philosophy—skeptical about psychiatry, religion and recently critical of scientism’s naivete.
3. Theology—wonderful history largely obscured by discredited liberalism and extreme fundamentalism.
ii. Scientists’ self-explanations are often confusing and raise barriers between philosophers, theologians and practicing scientists.
1. Some prefer to ignore the other realms.
2. Some insist on a ‘complementarian’ view, emphasizing that each discipline pursues truths in its own realm, and the realms do not overlap.
3. Others believe that truth is truth; Christians have said, “All truth is God’s truth.”
iii. Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions launched a critical rethinking of the philosophy of science.
1. Kuhn earned a Ph.D. in physics from Harvard.
a. While doing his work there, he became more interested in the logical foundations of the practice of science than physics itself.
b. He taught at Berkeley, Princeton and MIT; died of cancer at 73 in the 1990s.
c. He wrote a monograph in the 1940s that was published in 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
i. Essence.
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html
Throughout thirteen succinct but thought-provoking chapters, Kuhn argued that science is not a steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge. Instead, science is "a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions" [Nicholas Wade, writing for Science], which he described as "the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science." After such revolutions, "one conceptual world view is replaced by another" [Wade].
During periods of normal science, the primary task of scientists is to bring the accepted theory and fact into closer agreement. As a consequence, scientists tend to ignore research findings that might threaten the existing paradigm and trigger the development of a new and competing paradigm. For example, Ptolemy popularized the notion that the sun revolves around the earth, and this view was defended for centuries even in the face of conflicting evidence. In the pursuit of science, Kuhn observed, "novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation."
And yet, young scientists who are not so deeply indoctrinated into accepted theories - a Newton, Lavoisier, or Einstein - can manage to sweep an old paradigm away. Such scientific revolutions come only after long periods of tradition-bound normal science, for "frameworks must be lived with and explored before they can be broken." However, crisis is always implicit in research because every problem that normal science sees as a puzzle can be seen, from another perspective, as a counterinstance and thus as a source of crisis. This is the "essential tension" in scientific research.
ii. Content.
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
Normal science "is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like" (5)—scientists take great pains to defend that assumption.
To this end, "normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments" (5).
Research is "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education" (5).
A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly "subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice" (6). These shifts are what Kuhn describes as scientific revolutions—"the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science" (6).
New assumptions (paradigms/theories) require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by the established community.
When a shift takes place, "a scientist's world is qualitatively transformed [and] quantitatively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory" (7).
iii. Bottom line: it is difficult to consider new ways of perceiving the world when focused on a world-view or a paradigm that seems to explain most of the data at hand.
i. Philosophy of science challenges scientists to be more reflective and transparent about their work.
ii. Biblical world view is foundation of the sciences.
b. Applications
i. We are stewards of the earth: we must be “green.”
ii. We are stewards of knowledge: we must be scientists.
iii. We will always struggle to know: we will never fully understand all things.
Prov. 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and it is the glory of a king to search out a matter.
II. Dawkins’ God, March 11th
III. Evolution vs. Creation, March 18th, followed by panel discussion over lunch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
