Skip to content

Monthly Archives for September 2007

What’s up with Reformed theology?

I’ve never really understood Reformed theology. Well, I can understand it, I just don’t get it. What’s the big attraction? And, why do Reformed folks judge everything by the Westminster Standards instead of the Bible?

I’ve commented on this before, and I still don’t get it. It’s obvious as I weave through the theological blogosphere that the Reformed folks, at least the ones who are of the commenting persuasion, take issue with anything that doesn’t fit in their theological box. This seems at the very least to be unwise, and appears to be a form of fundamentalism. It is the theological equivalent of the senior citizen who simply stares forward and plows through an intersection without even checking to see if there is cross-traffic.

Reformed theology, aka Calvinism, is primarily concerned with the sovereignty of God, which has a direct impact on their doctrine of justification. Your desire and choice about whether to follow Jesus and be “saved” is not as important – and some would say of no consequence at all – as God’s decision as to whether or not you will be saved. The full spectrum of Reformed thinking, of course, runs all the way from the hyper-Calvinists who see only God’s sovereignty to those who hold to a form of universal election; however, the common emphasis is on God’s sovereignty. Therefore, when someone like NT Wright suggests a different spin, the Reformed Right condemns it out of hand.

Now, of course, you can go to a number of find Presbyterian churches and never hear any of this. One advantage of the current state of the church in America is that to a certain extent, Christianity has become cross-theological. When I was a child, a great chasm existed between Lutherans and Presbyterians. However, I’ve attended non-denominational Bible studies for 30 years, and para-church organizations like InterVarsity do much to expose people to a broader culture and ideology than what we heard in our Lutheran, Presbyterian or Baptist ghettos. It still confounds me, then, when I see that there are still dyed-in-the-wool Calvinists around who wave the Standards around instead of the Bible.

Michael Spencer, the “Internet Monk,” has posted a 3-part interview with Lutheran blogger Josh Strodtbeck about the differences between Lutheran and Reformed thinking as it concerns God’s sovereignty. As both are Reformation-based traditions that can look very similar at times, this is a very interesting and enlightening discussion. Here are the links:

Lutheran theology, of which I am possibly closer to than anything else, is often ignored in many of the Calvinist vs Arminian discussions, as it really sits off of that continuum, taking a different approach to the issues. For Lutherans, “sovereignty or free will” is not that big of an issue, and as far as I know, we’ve stopped burning Calvinists at the stake. I’ve just started rereading some Lutheran theology, having been out of that fold for 30-some years, and am finding things I agree with, and some I don’t. Luther, like all Catholics of his day, were way too influenced by Augustine, and was obviously still influenced by Roman Catholic doctrine. I really can’t blame Luther for not going further than he did, as the apple can only fall so far from the tree. But, for the most part, Lutheranism was a giant leap in the right direction and has a lot to offer to us today.

So, please check out the discussion.

Written on 14 September 2007 by me under Reviews, Theological Musings with 2 Comments

On meeting Ben Stein, and a look at Expelled

Yesterday afternoon, as a result of flight cancellations due to the grounding of the Bombardier Q400 puddle-jumpers, I found myself in the Spokane airport waiting for a rescheduled flight to board and noticed a gentleman who bore a striking resemblance to Ben Stein.

If you don’t know Ben Stein, you probably do but just don’t know it. A former speech writer for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, Mr. Stein can be seen often on Cable TV news channels commenting on finance and politics, heard as voices in cartoons such as Jimmy Neutron, or seen doing eyedrop commercials. You may remember his game show, Win Ben Stein’s Money. Or, you may best remember him as the boring economics teaching in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. He’s an author, speaker, and now star of a soon to be released documentary, Expelled.

I wasn’t, of course, sure that he was the genuine Ben Stein, and am not one to randomly approach people inquiring if they are famous personalities. A few minutes later, I found myself sitting directly behind the Man Who Could Be Ben Stein on my flight, where I spent the next hour wondering if it was really him. After we disembarked, my curiosity got the better of me and I walked up to him with a very smooth “Are you Ben Stein?”

As it turned out, he was. He immediately lit up, shook my hand, and asked my name. He was off to catch a connecting flight, but spoke to me for about five minutes before he headed off. My impression is that he is a genuinely nice man who has never let his “public figure” status go to his head.

As I had been recently reading about his upcoming movie, I mentioned to him that the movie seemed to be causing a bit of a stir; he laughed and replied that he really didn’t understand why, as the movie was not even finished yet, being still in the editing process. “They tell me I’m the star,” he laughed, “and even I don’t know what’s going to be in it.”

Expelled is a movie dealing with the evolution-design debate, specifically concerning the myriad attempts to keep any mention of “design” out of the American education system. From the movie’s official site:

EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed, is an upcoming feature film in which host Ben Stein (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off) goes on a quest to expose the suppression by science’s anti-theist elite, and unveil new scientific facts that may suggest evidence of intelligent design in the universe.

Now, here’s the controversy: essentially, the anti-design contingent is pissed. Now that the promotional materials for the film are being released, folks who were interviewed for the film claim they were misled about the nature of the film, which originally had a different title, “Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion.” According to PZ Myers, the letter he received asking for an interview stated, “We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement.” Apparently, even with this pretty out-front claim, he never bothered to ask if they were taking any particular side. You can read Myers’ whole thoughts about the film here.

It’s not uncommon for movie titles to change. It appears the film also moved from Rampart Films to Premise Media, but the producer is the same. The issues being discuss appear to still be the same as what was outlined in the initial letter Myers received. Now, I’m sure some of the fear is due to the hack job that happened to a few scientists a few years back with the film “What The Bleep Do We Know, which started out as a film about quantum physics but in reality was promoting some psycho cult whose leader says she channels the spirit of a 35,000 year-old Lemurian warrior.

It remains to be seen how Expelled will turn out, but I’m guessing folks like Harris, Dawkins and Myers will come across sounding like themselves; it’s pretty obvious how they stand on the issues, and I can’t imagine that they’re going to be edited to make them out to be Creationists. My guess is that the film will be no more biased, and hopefully more honest, than the recent documentaries by Michael Moore or Al Gore, and certainly won’t feature any dead Lemurians.

Ben Stein is an intelligent man, and I can’t wait to hear what he, and the others on all sides of the issue, have to say.

p.s. If you want to see an example of “no intelligence,” check out this post on The Panda’s Thumb.

Written on 13 September 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews with 14 Comments

The God Delusion – a critique

Finally, I have forced myself to sit down and begin dealing with Richard Dawkins’ much-touted book, The God Delusion. The reason, if you were wondering, why I’ve repeatedly put off dealing with Dawkins has been put rather well in a review I found of Alister McGrath’s little critique of Dawkins:

As McGrath points out, trying to critique Dawkins’ arguments is difficult. They are naive, emotive, poorly argued, misrepresent religion and Christianity, and are a departure from the usual careful and rigorous approach that Dawkins displays in his other books.

While I haven’t read the McGrath book, I think I can recommend it based on the quote by Michael Ruse, “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why.”

If Dawkins were more logical, the book would be somewhat easier to deal with. Nearly every page presents some item that needs to be challenged, so a complete critique would end up probably larger than The God Delusion itself. The book is full of outlandish statements, which appears to be Dawkins’ standard rhetorical style, such as:

I have yet to see any good reason to suppose that theology (as opposed to biblical history, literature, etc.) is a subject at all.

I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages.

The only difference between The Davinci Code and the gospels is that the gospels are ancient fiction while The Da Vinci Code is modern fiction.

The book also contains a number of errors (or misdirections) of logic. In one example (page 129), he tries to dismiss the concept of irreducible complexity by referencing A.G. Cairns-Smith analogy of a free-standing arch, claiming it is irreducibly complex because it falls if one stone is removed, and asks “how, then, was it built in the first place?” He then explains how such an arch can be constructed by the use of some scaffolding. The analogy is obviously ridiculous if it is being used to support unguided evolution, as the use of scaffolding requires engineering; in other words, design. Since this isn’t even an original piece of bad logic, I can’t blame Dawkins for coming up with it, but he is responsible for repeating it.

Dawkins goes on to talk about some of Micheal Behe’s examples of irreducible complexity; when he can’t completely dismiss the flagellar motor, he says, “A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I’m sure it will be.” This is all fine and good, if he were to admit that the “gaps” are up for grabs. However, he then attempts to ridicule the what is called the “God of the gaps” reasoning, in spite of just having used the same reasoning himself – the “science of the gaps” position!

Dawkins also makes a common logical error when discussing the Fine Tuning argument, that proposes that the universe, and the Earth in particular, is so “fine tuned” for human life that it could not be an accident. He attempts to dismiss it by saying that complexity cannot be used to support a Creator / Fine Tuner as it fails to answer the question of the existence of the Creator, who would have to be as complex as the universe He created. This is the standard red herring used in dealing with the “first cause” issue, and it changes nothing. I will agree that the origin and nature of God are still questions to be considered; however, that is a separate question, and must be kept distinct from the question of the creation of the universe. Once we conclude that the universe must have been created (and designed) by someone or something, then we can go on to the next question and discuss the nature of that creator/designer. It is not logical to ignore a potential answer to a question simply because it presents a new question. Furthermore, the two questions exist in different “magisteria” and the logic applied to one is not necessarily the logic to be applied to the other.

Let me explain a bit further: An automobile engine (especially the newer, computerized beasts) are quite complex, and as it is a purely material, non-living thing it cannot have created itself. We can then presume that some intelligent being designed it. That, of course, presents the question, “but who is this intelligent being?” Evolutionists who believe in non-guided evolution would easily draw the distinction between the existence of the engine, which could not have evolved on it’s own, and the human designer, which they believe did evolve on it’s own. Different rules apply.

Again, there are a plethora of problems in Dawkins’ book that I don’t have time to deal with, and McGrath might be a good place to go for more on Dawkins’ logical missteps. However, Dawkins has summarized (page 157) the central argument in his book in a series of 6 numbered points. In what will probably be a series of 2 or 3 posts, I will explore these six points.

Written on 09 September 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews with 6 Comments

“Nobelists” who believe in God

Here’s an interesting site, billed as a free “e-book” (I don’t know what makes it an e-book as opposed to a website, but whatever…), nobelists.net. I guess the difference is that the book of which the site consists is titled 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God (catchy title, eh?). It is, as the site indicates, an anthology of quotations from 50 scientist “biggies” concerning God.

I mention this primarily because it’s interesting, not that I’m trying to make any argument from authority to prove God’s existence. The list of folks quoted include such biggies as Einstein (many will scream at the proposition that he believed in God), Max Planck, Heisenberg (of the uncertainty principle), and Schroedinger (of the “cat”), as well as old-timers like Pascal and Bacon (not Kevin). If nothing else, this will be an invaluable resource for quote-mining ;-) (which, by the way, merely means to quote someone to support your point).

Now, I’m not claiming that these folks were all Theists. Some may have been Diests or even Panentheists. However, the quotes are what they are, and it makes for some interesting reading, and may prompt someone to read further to be able to put the quotes in context. That’s not a bad thing.

Written on 06 September 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Random Thoughts with No Comments

The problem of evil

As I’ve read through some of the recent books & articles by the anti-God folks like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others, I’ve been considering the possibility that the real issue isn’t necessarily dealing with the existence of God, but rather it is dealing with the problem of evil. A belief (or non-belief) in God seems to relate to our ability or inability to deal with the issue of evil and perhaps even the personification of evil (aka Satan). I refer to Dawkins, et al., as “anti-God” rather than skeptics or non-believers, because they’re not really skeptics or non-believers. They do believe in something, just not a non-material god. And, their apparent willingness to accept the gaps and other problems inherent in a Darwinist or materialist worldview shows that they are not skeptics (at least to the same degree) all of the time.

One of the big obstacles in belief in God appears to be some version of, “if there is a good, all-powerful God, why does he allow, or why doesn’t He do something about, evil?” Pages and pages have been dedicated to such topics, including sub-topics dealing with the flaws in Creation, the apparent flaws in design, the evil in mankind (especially in God-believers), and so forth. None, however, ever seem to deal with what the religions teach about the problem of evil. The Bible is decried as a poor example for a morality guidebook, without ever considering the explanation the Bible itself provides for why evil exists, and why God continues to allow evil to exist.

People (both atheists and believers alike) do scream when people like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell declare evil to be God’s judgment on some specific sin. But again, no one – at least in the mainstream media – ever seems to deal with the real issue. There is a new book out, however, which apparently tries in a scholarly way to support the “judgment” theory. Author Steven Keillor, in God’s Judgments: Interpreting History and the Christian Faith, argues that yes, God did use terrorists to judge America’s sins. Whether he’s right, to any extent, remains to be seen. According to a review in Books and Culture, Keillor’s “aim is to ‘find some answers’ and ‘not a worldview answering everything.’”

In an interesting coincidence, the same publisher, IVP, has also recently published N.T. Wright’s Evil and the Justice of God, which does attempt to find the worldview, as expressed in the Bible. While not, perhaps, explaining everything (Wright is not afraid of raising the various “ambiguities”), Wright’s theory of evil does provide a worldview for understanding not just the evil in the world, but also the evil within us. I had purchased the book some time ago, but only picked it up the other night as I (for the first time all summer) found myself without at least one book that I was in the midst of reading.

Now, many of you know that if NT Wright were ever to leave the Anglican Church and start his own movement, I’d seriously consider joining. That being admitted, I will say that this book captivated me as very few books do. Wright’s first chapter is revelational, as it explores Western Enlightenment and Postmodern thinking and how it has failed to deal with the problem of evil in any real way. Those suspicious of “Christian” ultra-conservative politics will be particularly pleased with his analysis. He then proceeds through some key Biblical books and themes, the true nature of evil and how God indeed deals with it.

I’ve read through a little over half the book (I’m amazed at how Wright can take such an enormous issue and so thoroughly deal with it without reducing it, in so few pages), and will no doubt write a bit more on the subject when I’ve finished.

And, yes, I really will deal with Dawkins, soon. I planned to have taken vacation this week and should have had more time, but alas, it wasn’t to be…

Written on 05 September 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews, Theological Musings with 5 Comments