Skip to content

Category Archives for Faith, Science & Doubt

Does atheism’s concept of morality have a Biblical basis?

Today, Tom Gilson reviews a couple of books that make the argument that the concept of morality that we have today, which is shared by Christians and non-Christians alike, including atheists, originates from teachings found in the Bible.

If you’ve paid any attention at all to the writings (and speakings) of people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, you’re probably aware of their claims that morality has its source—as does everything—in the natural world. Harris’ latest book specifically argues for a naturalistic/scientific basis for morality.  They, and other of the so-called “new atheists” go further and claim that religion—and often Christianity in particular— is actually a source of evil. While many Christians know right off the bat that this is mere foolishness, and believe theologically that morality originates with God, most of us are unequipped to respond intelligently to the atheists’ [often unintelligent] claims. Hopefully these books will help to remedy that.

Gilson writes:

To grant full humanity: what Mangalwadi called the West’s greatest discovery. It was not to be found in Plato or Aristotle, not even in the Stoics. It came from the One who died for all equally, declaring all equally worthy of life, all equally significant, all fully human. Some complain (for example) that Christianity denigrates the status of women, but the charge is both historically and geo-culturally laughable, for it is only Christianity that has brought a real sensitivity to women into world culture. A great many other claims of Christianity’s faults are in the same category. Not all of them, to be sure: both of these authors acknowledge the human error that has always afflicted the Church. Still, as Hart has pointed out, the conscience by which we name those errors is a uniquely Christian conscience.

As we all know, the mere fact that there is a Judeo-Christian moral standard doesn’t mean that all Jews and Christians can live up to it. In fact, as we know, the gospel reveals that we can’t—that’s the point of the gospel. And, of course, neither can the atheists live up to any standard they set, even the broadly-interpreted “Do no harm.” “Harm” is, of course, open to interpretation. From a Christian perspective, any promotion of atheism or naturalism is doing harm in a spiritual sense.

I don’t know that I will run out and buy either of these books soon; my stack of unread books is already too high (including one really poor excuse for a book that I’m supposed to have reviewed already). But, I tend to have a soft spot when it comes to these kinds of topics… Now that I’ve blogged about them, if I find myself wanting to read more on this topic, I at least know where to find them.

Written on 20 September 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Philosophy with 2 Comments

David Berlinski: Exposing the Emperor

As some of you may know, one of my many tangential interests is the philosophical tension that exists between science and religion (in general terms).  Over the last few years, there have arisen a loose band of very outspoken quasi-scientists who have taken it upon themselves to rid the world of religion, or at least make anyone holding any kind of religious beliefs appear completely foolish.

In reality, it is a retelling of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Those wanting to be accepted by the quasi-scientific community walk around proudly displaying their “knowledge,” not realizing that they are only exposing their ignorance. The emperor—dressed in his belief in materialism or naturalism and it’s Darwinian mythology—has no clothes.

One of the more interesting figures in this debate is David Berlinski, an agnostic writer, mathematician and philosopher who is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He is also an American in Paris, which is just kind of cool.

Berlinski is one of those guys who makes you feel smarter just listening to him. And, he has a particular knack for exposing the nakedness of the naturalists (an interesting double entendre). Below is a video of an interview with Berlinski, which is worth giving some time to (I watched it in several installments).  In the interview he describes evolution as “an exercise in conditional plausibility” and says that it is “lacking all forms of analytical sufficiency.”

And, interesting for an agnostic, he believes that the universe as we have it is perfectly aligned with what we’d expect from the Old Testament. He does not, however, claim that the universe is proof that there is a God; it is just consistent with the existence of such a being.  Like I said, he’s an interesting individual.

And, sorry about the formatting—the video is a touch oversized for the column width.

Thanks to Poweline for the video.

Written on 11 September 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 1 Comment

Einstein and God: It doesn’t take a genius

EinsteinOver the past few years I repeatedly run into to arguments between Theists and atheists over Einstein’s belief in God, as if it makes any difference to anyone but him. The atheist view is that Einstein’s use of the label “God” (as in “God does not play dice with the universe.”) simply referred to whatever mechanism originated the universe and/or holds it together.  A quote often cited is, “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings” (in response to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein’s question about Einstein’s beliefs).

Einstein actually said a number of things about God, some of which seem to conflict others. It’s not that surprising, as we all have thoughts about things—even about God—that change over time.

A couple of things are pretty certain: He was never a Christian (he was Jewish by birth), and he was not an atheist. At times he referred to himself as agnostic, meaning that he didn’t claim to know. He did, however, at least believe at one point that there was an intelligence behind the universe:

I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.

We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written these books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.

– Albert Einstein (Time Magazine Interview, cited in Einstein and Religion,
Max Jammer [Princeton: 1999] p. 48.)

Personally, I don’t think it takes a genius to come to this conclusion. Without God revealing himself in more specific ways (Heb. 1:1-2), this is about all we can know. But, as the writer of Hebrews states, we do have more specific revelation (thank God). It doesn’t take a genius to recognize this—but it does take wisdom (He who has ears to hear, let him hear).

(Thanks to The Poached Egg for this quote)

Written on 08 September 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with No Comments

The Slavery Issue: Did Paul support slavery?

Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.  For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.  (1 Cor. 7:20-24 NIV)

While I have never met a Christian who taught or believed (to my knowledge, anyway) that the Bible supported slavery, this is a common point of contention for many anti-Christian folks who claim that Christianity is an evil religion for supporting slavery.

Certainly there are those Christians in the past who used this passage to justify slavery, such as in the American South. This is, of course, unfortunate, to say the least—especially since this seems to be based on a mistranslation of the Greek, combined with another of Augustine’s heresies.

I recently read a paper by S. Scott Bartchy of the UCLA Dept. of History that builds a pretty good case for the position that the Greek word translated as “situation” or “condition” had no such meaning until Martin Luther mistranslated it into German. According to Bartchy and others he mentions, the word’s only meaning is “calling,” in the context of being called by God.  Bartchy claims that Luther’s mistranslation was intentional, to defend against a popular notion that God’s call meant a call to become a monk or priest (which is how Luther ended up a monk—he was studying to e a lawyer). Luther wanted to reinforce that we can be called to serve in whatever our current occupation happens to be.

While the context certainly seems consistent with Luther’s alleged mistranslation, Paul clearly encourages slaves to become free if given the opportunity, consistent with “owe no many anything.” Bartchy believes that rather than supporting slavery, Paul is making the point that you don’t have to become anything else in order to accept God’s call. You don’t have to become free, although it’s a good thing if you can obtain your freedom in a non-rebellious manner. You can be a good Christian slave (consider the impact Joseph had in Egypt); so accept God’s call, even though your circumstances aren’t ideal:

24. To be sure, Paul along with almost all of his contemporaries apparently did not imagine that slavery as such could be eliminated from his world. Nevertheless, Paul did not want any enslaved persons who had become Christ-followers to think that their legal-social status could influence negatively their relationship to God or their warm welcome into the “body of Christ.” The key question was: who did they think they were? It is a question of their primary identity. For Paul, being “in Christ” trumps all other definers.

Bartchy also points out that while Paul didn’t support slavery, Augustine did:

26. Augustine explained that God instituted slavery as punishment for the offense of Adam‟s original sin. In sharp contrast, Paul never connected this institution either with the will of God as punishment for sin…or with the orders of creation.

Augustine’s thoughts on slavery are, again, unfortunate, as are the consequences of Luther’s translation error, especially since so few people think for themselves—including, it seems, Bible translators.

Of course, I am not an expert in NT Greek, and I haven’t researched this issue. Bartchy could be stark, raving mad, for all I know.  If he’s correct, that at least removes one more excuse for people to write off Christianity.

Written on 05 September 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Theological Musings with 1 Comment

Adam, Eve, and original sin (Augustine’s heresy)

Most western Christians don’t realize that our understanding of man’s state of sinfulness — sometimes using terms like “total depravity” and “original sin” — is largely the invention of Augustine of Hippo, and that the majority of the Church at that time rejected his ideas.  The Eastern churches still do.

The doctrine of Original Sin, by the way, is more than just believing that man is born with a tendency toward sin. It is also that man inherited the guilt of Adam — something the Bible doesn’t teach. This is why some believe that babies are born guilty, so if they die before they are baptized, they won’t make it into Heaven.

Personally, I think it’s enough to be guilty of my own sin.

Those of you who have followed this blog for any period of time might recall that I have in the past discussed various issues with what is known as the Penal Theory of the Atonement, which also arises from Augustine’s thinking. I’ve never claimed to be an expert on the subject, and I haven’t come to any final conclusions, except that the concept of the Father taking his anger out on Jesus because he needed someone to punish seems quite out of character. Also, I’ve raised issues with the Augustinian / Calvinist notion of Total Depravity, which also seems contrary to Jesus’ attitudes toward people.

Other Issues

Augustinian theology causes other problems, too, as discussed in the following video by an Orthodox Priest out of Canada. He brings out a number of very interesting points that I think Protestants should at least consider, such as the impact on the Church’s response to science and how Augustinian theology relates to violence.   In fact, the Orthodox view seems to resolve a number of the issues often raised by atheists.

I think the video is worth 15 minutes of your time.

If you do watch it, I’d really be interested in your responses.

Written on 02 September 2011 by me under Exploring the Twain, Faith, Science & Doubt with 8 Comments

Bart Ehrman on the certainty of Jesus

I have picked on Bart Ehrman, the atheist’s favorite Bible scholar, a few times on this blog (and even more elsewhere). If you aren’t familiar with him, he has written a handful of books in the last few years talking about all of the errors in the New Testament and claiming some of the books are forgeries.

However, it turns out that Ehrman actually does believe a few things. I ran across an interesting post today discussing a book by Mike Licona, in he what he calls the “historical bedrock”—three facts about Jesus and early Christianity which are accepted by virtually all liberal and conservative scholars alike.

As it turns out, Ehrman believes these things too.

They are:

1. Jesus’ death by crucifixion

2. Very Shortly after Jesus’ death, the disciples had experiences that led them to believe and proclaim that Jesus had been resurrected and had appeared to them.

3. Within a few years after Jesus death, Paul converted after a personal experience that he interpreted as a post resurrection appearance of Jesus to him.

The article goes on to give supporting quotes from Ehrman on these three points.

These aren’t a bad start—he could turn into a preacher yet.

 

Written on 08 June 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 1 Comment

The Importance of the External Word

Steve Martin (not the banjo-playing comedian) published a thought-provoking blog post today, discussing how important the external Word of God is to faith, as opposed to placing our faith in our own emotions and thoughts. An excerpt:

Lot’s of Christians speak of the grace of God. “He is our all in all.” He has done it all.” “There is nothing we can add.” That is a good thing.  But there is nothing for many of these Christians to grab hold of. Their beliefs inhabit the nebulous territories of heart and mind. Yes, we believe them. But now what? How can we be SURE that they are true, and real, IN OUR LIVES, at this moment?

It seems that because of the kind of creature that we are, a tactile, tangible, experiential being, our faith must land somewhere. The rubber must meet the road,  somewhere, somehow.

If there’s nothing to grab a hold of that is tangible, that comes to us from outside of ourselves, then we will internalize this desire for solid proof. We will rely on our emotions, our deeds, our thoughts, our knowledge, even our own faith. Welcome to ‘religion’ in the 21st century. Look familiar? It ought to. It’s no different than the religion that humans have practiced for as long as they have been around. It hides behind the pious words and works of those who have no assurance of their salvation, other than what they are able to muster up of their own volition. Then you end up with holiness churches where people are movin’ on up.

But the external Word, which includes the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, are different. They do not eminate from inside of ourselves and are not dependent on anything that comes from our side of the equation. They are real events that happen in real places with real earthly elements in real time. And the action in these events is not our action, but God’s. His Word is attached to them. Otherwise they just remain earthly elements. And these actions of God are apprehended by the very gift of faith that God also gives to us, in these Sacraments and in the hearing of His Word.

Now we have something that we can HOLD onto. Something that has been given to us with NO strings attached. Something that is REAL…and NOT subject to the winds that blow in and out of our often weak frames, hearts and minds.

We often forget that Christianity is an incarnational faith; that is, it relies on the belief that the “word became flesh” and that Jesus turned real water into real wine and used real mud to heal real eyes. He was baptized with real water, told the disciples to remember him through drinking real wine and eating real bread, and had his real body executed and resurrected.

With regard to his teaching, he said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear,” not “look into your heart to find the truth.” And, yet we want to spiritualize our faith today, making it dependent upon our own understanding and feelings. No wonder so many fall into doubt and despair.

As Proverbs 3:5 says, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.”

How positively archaic.

Written on 01 June 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 1 Comment

Bart Ehrman forges on in Forged

Bart Ehrman intrigues me. Here’s a guy who apparently could do real research and perhaps even add something to the discussion of Biblical and extra-Biblical writings, but he doesn’t.

It seems to me that he is being purposefully deceptive (i.e. he lies). An alternate theory is that he is really quite clueless, but is able to market himself to publishers and others who are similarly clueless. Or, … well, I can’t really think of any other options at the moment. I don’t want to presume that he’s being intentionally deceptive, but he does seem smart enough to know what he’s saying isn’t correct.

Forged is Ehrman’s latest offering, continuing on in the tradition of really bad scholarship that he’s shown in Jesus, Interrupted and other books.

I haven’t read Forged, however, and I’m not planning to. I’ve read enough of his stuff to know how he writes, so when I read in-depth reviews by people like Ben Witherington, who is a real Biblical scholar, I know enough about the book. So, this post isn’t a review by me, but rather a recommendation to check out Witherington’s series on the book.

In the post linked to above, Witherington comments on Ehrman’s “scholarship:”

Bart, is actually swimming against the tide of the scholarship, even on the Pastorals.   And here I must register a big complaint.   Look at the footnotes to Chapter Three.   Do we find any evidence at all that Bart has even read a broad and representative sampling of commentaries on Paul’s letters, or even on the Pastorals?   No, we do not.  Maybe he has,  but his views only match up with a sort of cherry-picking approach to the scholarship, highly selective in character, and tendentiously favoring only the more radical or controversial commentators on Paul.   It is also worth noting that he relies heavily on the older scholarship  of A.N. Harrison or N. Brox or the eccentric work of  D. MacDonald.   But this older scholarship has long since been critiqued, and largely discarded as inadequate.   Bart however trots it out as if: 1) it was news, and 2) such conclusions would go unchallenged today by the majority of scholars.   Wrong, and wrong.

Witherington agrees with him on many points, as he discusses forgeries that everyone believes are forgeries. It is when he moves into Canonical documents that the problems arise.

Ehrman seems to approach his writing along the lines of a hack journalist, who is more interested in selling his position (and his books) than actually reporting the truth (of course, these days this description could apply to the majority of what passes for journalism). He is, perhaps, the Rush Limbaugh of liberal Biblical scholarship. He tells a good story; the problem comes in when you start fact-checking.

You can read parts 1 and 2 of Witherington’s analysis here and here.

Written on 06 April 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews with No Comments

Common Descent and the leap of faith

There’s an interesting story yesterday at Evolution News & Views that shows that scientists are not necessarily in agreement with the so-called “tree of life,” not to be confused with this one. (In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that “Evolution News & Views” appears to be an ID-oriented site, perhaps associated with the Discovery Institute, which is routinely dismissed by evolutionists similar to the way President Obama dismisses Fox News. I have no particular allegiance to them or to any particular view of ID.)

By the accounts of some evolutionists, you would be led to believe that “common descent,” the theory that all of earth’s life forms evolved from the same source, and are thus all related. Even Francis Collins, the Christian scientist who headed the Human Genome Project and the author of “The Language of God,” believes in Common Descent.

In support of Common Descent, Richard Dawkins has stated (as quoted in the article) that “the genetic code is universal … (with one or two exceptions too minor to undermine the generalization).”

Trouble in paradise?

However, there appear to be no less than seventeen variations of the genetic code, some of which are completely incompatible with the others. J. Craig Venter, himself a recognized expert on the human genome, recently stated, “The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren’t really holding up…So there is not a tree of life.”

The article is, of course, not conclusive, it just reports on the recent dialog at Arizona State Univ. that involved Dawkins and Venter (there’s a link to a video of the discussion, if you’re interested). What it shows is that the scientific data must be interpreted; that is, it is not necessarily conclusive. One must line up the evidence, and then make at least a small  jump to a conclusion.

Highly intelligent and educated minds can reach different conclusions, as they must decide which data to give more weight, and which data to disregard. Dawkins has perhaps downplayed or ignored the incompatibilities between the 17 variations of the genetic code, and Venter has perhaps given them too much weight—who knows? Once again, scientific conclusions show themselves to have some subjective components, bearing a remarkable similarity to a “leap of faith.”

How do we decide where to leap?

Before I go any further, I would like to point out that I do not believe that one can use Intelligent Design arguments to prove the existence of God. However, if one presumes the existence of God, then elements of design will become evident. Furthermore, while evidence of design may not be conclusive, it can certainly point to the possibility of a common designer, in the same way that a newly-discovered painting can have indications that it is a Rembrandt.

Assuming the existence of God as the creator of all life, is a universal genetic code surprising, whether or not there are some variations? The 17 versions of the genetic code may be an impediment to common descent, but not to a common source, or a common designer. Whether we look to Mars or to Heaven, it requires we make a leap of faith.

 

 

 

Written on 10 March 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 2 Comments

Penn Gillette on Proselytism

Here’s an atheist that at least understands (though he probably should avoid this camera angle in the future). Thanks to Robin Parry.

Written on 07 March 2011 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with No Comments