Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Questioning Your Way to Faith
The Table - Group Book Reads
>
Questioning Your Way to Faith
Lee wrote: "My review of this book just went live:http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2013/0..."
Thank you for the review Lee. I appreciate your fairness and honesty.
you're welcome. :) I enjoyed it!
I want to jump in late to the omni-discussion, or at least, comment on Lee's comment above. It strikes me: does the fact that God's omniscience grew over time prove anything in regards to whether God is omniscient or not?It reminds me of a common critique I see of Christianity. On one hand, Christianity (and religion in general) is criticized for not changing. This is often contrasted with science (which is a false dichotomy). But the point seems to be that we can't trust Christianity because it is all based on the words of people dead 2-3 thousand years. Unlike things that are real knowledge, it doesn't change!
On the other hand, if we show that Christian theology does change this is still seen as a criticism of Christianity. It is as if to say, how can we trust Christianity since people who follow it always change their views!
Lee is not saying this, his comment just reminded me of it. If we admit our view of God has changed over the centuries, this shows it is unreliable. If we claim it has not changed, this shows it is unreliable.
I for one think our knowledge of God has changed over the years and am okay with that.
Just noticed I gave a bad link to the omniscience post. I fixed it.
I'll jump into chapter four...wanting to get some discussion going!"Morality can only have a purpose or mission if the universe has a purpose. Theism gives a point to morality that atheism can never give it."
Kazmaier, Peter (2013-05-14). Questioning Your Way to Faith: Learning to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable (Kindle Locations 1012-1013). Word Alive Press. Kindle Edition.
I thought the analogy to morality in a godless world becoming just a powerplay was good. It changes from "you can't do x because we (society) say so" rather than "you can't do x because it is wrong". I truly see no way to get to saying something is objectively wrong in a godless world.
David I think it was Machiavelli who made this point most strongly about making people conform to the ruler's will by force.I still have great difficulty in talking to atheists about this since I seem to get (what seems to me) an internally contradictory response. For example Steven Weinberg (whose writing I respect) in his book Facing Up at one point states categorically that morality (ethics if you like) is made up (invented) yet in another part of the book, when he responds to the claim that atheism destroys the possibility of morality becomes quite indignant and he follows with the non sequitor that atheists are often more moral than religious people (this is a non sequitor because the relative moral performance of atheists versus Christians was not the topic of discussion).
It seems to me that as soon as you claim that morality is made up the discussion is in effect over because everybody's "invented" morality is not what we mean by morality at all which requires a consensus.
Lee wrote: "Peter, my question for you (if we're ready for chapter three) is this: Why do you, and seemingly everyone, assume the three "omnies"? Yes, there are verses in scripture that imply omnipotence etc.,..."A simpler solution, which preserves Al's theism, is to quit presuming God is omni-everything (eg: recognize the Bible's anti-omni verses as literal and the omni ones as rhetorical), when the problem of evil likewise goes away. Right?
Lee, I'm not sure if my previous answers were complete. You're right, one can get out of the apparent dilemma by denying any of the four statements:
(1) Floyd as an atheist denied God's existence.
(2) A Dualist, believing in good and evil gods opposites like electrons and positrons) are denying omnipotence (the power is shared).
(3) Some Hindus and some Buddhists as pantheists would deny the existence of evil. Our perception of evil is an illusion. Since at the highest level, everything would be one, morality disappears as one approaches the unity of godhood.
Does that make sense?
Out of curiousity, Peter, would you consider me an atheist because I do not ascribe omnipotence to God? Omnipotence, and its companion omnis, seem to me to introduce more mind-boggling complexities than they solve. I'm kinda surprised we ever developed such ideas.By the way, I'm not sure Christians have higher morals than atheists, but I'll come out and say that I believe Christians hold themselves to a higher standard.
Lee, I don't like putting people into boxes, so I'll leave it to you to tell me what you are from a world view perspective.I would define an atheist as someone who affirms that God or gods does/do not exist.
I would define an agnostic as someone who claims they have not seen enough evidence to affirm that God/gods exist.
Properties such as omnipotence etc. refer to the kind of God that a theist believes in. Does this short explanation help to clarify how I understand these terms?
I am comfortable affirming God's omnipotence.That said, I think I need to define God through the person of Jesus Christ primarily. I want to emphasize the incarnation with Jesus as the human face of God. One critique I often have for apologetics is that, when coming from a foundational perspective, they almost seem to tack Jesus on at the end.
In Jesus we see the weakness of God - we see the God of Job, speaking out of the whirlwind about his own greatness compared to Job's minutiae, basically telling Job to shut up and bow at the feet of power, become a human. The powerful God lays all that aside (Philippians 2) to become a weak, poor powerless human. If we get our view of God through Jesus, our clearest picture of God is of a being who lays aside omnipotence in order to walk among humanity and have relationship.
Again, I am okay with omnipotence and think it is a valid description of God. But the weakness of God in Jesus gets me fired up.
David wrote: "One critique I often have for apologetics is that, when coming from a foundational perspective, they almost seem to tack Jesus on at the end."David, I disagree completely. I've read quite a few books who try to approach it from the Jesus angle, and they all fail miserably. All of them. People like Lee Strobel, for instance. At one point I grew so frustrated with horrible arguments and absurdities that I was starting to rant about how Christians should just live by faith and quit trying to make sense of their own beliefs.
Peter's approach is the correct one, and the only approach I've ever read that makes sense (though several recent books have taken this approach). Provide reasonable argument for the existence of a creator who has scripted life, and then suggest from personal experience that you believe Jesus is that creator.
You should be terrified Peter that Lee agrees with you. Dangerous!Lee Strobel Rocks! He's alot more liberal than me - but he puts in a good effort.
Fair enough Lee. Though I think I didn't explain my point well.I am skeptical of the foundationalist apologetics that seeks to build a tower of evidence from the ground up based on universal reason. Part of the reason I am skeptical is that it seems to put faith in the evidence more then in Jesus. But this is "classical" apologetics, it is how I learned to defend the faith in seminary:
*Existence of God (cosmological, teleological, etc.)
*If there is a God, God can do miracles
*Miracles prove Jesus
I would argue Lee Strobel does fit into this. Books like Geisler's I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist or Craig's Reasonable Faith move through this sort of classical model. Strobel's books focus on one piece of the tower but if you reorder them, and take them together, his argument becomes the same - Case for the Creator (step 1), Case for Christ (step 2). The Case for Christ is not meant to be comprehensive, so you can't criticize it for not taking the same method as Craig (or Peter).
I didn't mean to attack Peter's approach. His book shows that you tailor your discussion to whoever you are talking to and Al answers Floyd's questions. I like the book and think the approach is valid.
I am not saying to approach "apologetics" from the Jesus angle; I actually think the evidentialist (Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict) is even weaker then classical. I am saying I am less interested in apologetics then I am in just talking about Jesus. Most college students I know are not bored with Christianity because they don't understand proofs for God's existence and explaining those proofs is not going to bring them closer to God, they are bored because Christianity is uninteresting. I guess I am talking evangelism, not apologetics - I think they are more likely to catch the vision of Jesus, to become his disciples, then they are to be argued into any sort of faith.
Does that better make sense?
Maybe I should put it this way - while Floyd may like the debate with Al, I think more of the students (at least that I know) would rather volunteer at a day camp or soup kitchen with a Christian friend. They are more likely to begin taking baby steps of Christian faith and along the way as they learn about the Jesus they are now following, the questions come up. Kind of like how Jesus' original disciples did it, they didn't sit around and have scholarly debate on whether Jesus was Messiah before following, they began following and figured out the details as they went.
I agree with what you're saying David. Getting to know the real person, Jesus is always the central issue.Having said that, given the many aggressive atheistic authors that are attacking belief in Christ as irrational and evil, at some point these kinds of questions come up and in my experience, people who have started their journey with Jesus, begin to wonder "have I been fooled?" I'm hoping this conversation along with many others can help in those circumstances.
It can never replace or substitute for a personal relationship with Jesus (which I think is what Lee means by personal experience).
In closing, I have found McDowell's writings useful, thought provoking, and compelling. Like many things in this area, to my mind, they have not so much been refuted as ignored. We have this chronological snobbery that says that if a book is old, it must therefore be wrong or have been superseded.
"Chronological snobbery" - I once accused Lee of that exact thing! LOL!I definitely agree with what you said. These questions do come up. Like you hinted at, I think such apologetics is almost more vital for Christians to provide answers (when asking, "have I been fooled?"). It is like Anselm (or Augustine, or both) said - faith seeking understanding. Your conversation certainly does help. I think we need more people in apologetics doing what you are doing - writing a good story people want to read and telling truth in that way. I think that is what The Halcyon Disclocation is, almost Lewis-esque. It is not bad literature written as propoganda (like Left Behind series, ugh); it is good literature with good characters who discuss these things.
Sorry about my backhanded slap of McDowell. I have not read much of his work and I am sure a lot is good. I am more not sold on the philosophical underpinings - this evidence demands a verdict and anyone with a brain will conclude Christianity is real. It is the same sort of (Scottish Common Sense Realism, I think) that influences many today who read the Bible - if we just read it without preconceived ideas we'll all agree on what it says. It is just not that simple.
Speaking of atheistic authors attacking belief, I'll dive into one part of the book where I would have a totally different tactic - when Al starts arguing for intelligent design. I am not a scientist, and I frankly couldn't care less about this issue anymore. My answer would simply be that lots of Christians believe in evolution and its truth or falsity has little to nothing to do with the central points of Christian faith.
I am fine with people who know more science arguing it, if they want. At the same time, that is when I start to wonder if it is just an apologetic rabbit trail.
I think the issue about evolution is more about "chromosomal snobbery." The Christian cry goes up, "my grandpa is not a monkey!" I think the idea is that mankind has to be something more special than other animals, because God has favored us with a soul ... or else it's simple embarrassment about being related to other primates.
Robert's stance says it all: all the other animals came about through evolution, but (shudder) not we humans! (Sorry if I misrepresented you, Robert, I *think* that's where you stand).
David wrote: ""Chronological snobbery" - I once accused Lee of that exact thing! LOL!I definitely agree with what you said. These questions do come up. Like you hinted at, I think such apologetics is almost..."
Speaking of atheistic authors attacking belief, I'll dive into one part of the book where I would have a totally different tactic - when Al starts arguing for intelligent design. I am not a scientist, and I frankly couldn't care less about this issue anymore. My answer would simply be that lots of Christians believe in evolution and its truth or falsity has little to nothing to do with the central points of Christian faith.
David, I hear what you're saying (my pastor would say the same thing), but as I see it here's the problem: The term evolution is such an ill-defined and plastic term that if you look carefully at many of these discussions, the meaning of the term evolution will actually change as the discussion progresses.
Generally one begins with a very modest definition: change in an organism over time. A good deal of evidence is available to support this definition and that evidence is used to claim that evolution has been proven -- end of story. Before you know it though, the argument jumps from this change over time definition to the "origin of all life on the planet, caused solely by random chance without the intervention of an intelligent agent" and that seamless transition to a much expanded definition which has metaphysical claims and cannot be verified experimentally (the critical experiment would be a 3 billion year experiment and how does one really prove that a process is completely random?) is the apologetics problem. Now "evolution" is used to show that there is no need at all for a Creator. Can we as Christians still give intellectual assent a process that explicitly rules out a Creator? Should we not call them to account as they disobey the laws of reasoning by changing the definition to suit their ends as the discussion continues?
To me this use of argumentative subterfuge to sneak in the metaphysics of materialism needs to be challenged. In an argument, the definitions must remain unchanged.
At the end of the day, I really only want two things in relation to the origins questions: (1)I want to believe the truth; (2) I want the freedom as a scientist to follow the experiments and the data wherever they lead. If they point to a designer, let me say so and don't apply a philosophical filter to the results that rule certain explanations out based conformity to a "scientific philosophy." Above all don't take away my job, deny me grant money, or make sure I can't publish another paper because I had the audacity to put the hypothesis of design onto the table. Isn't this freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads, exactly what Al is asking for?
Lee wrote: "I think the issue about evolution is more about "chromosomal snobbery." The Christian cry goes up, "my grandpa is not a monkey!" I think the idea is that mankind has to be something more special th..."Lee, great term "chromosomal snobbery." Back to your contention about the similarity of Homo Sapiens and other animals. As I read it, chimpanzees have some 97% commonality of DNA sequences with Homo Sapiens. Are we really that similar? Here we are, miles apart, sharing complex ideas about God, the cosmos, and many other things. Are there chimpanzees on the planet doing the same thing? I think Robert,as he identifies people as being a sui generis, is right. We may be physically similar, but by my observation, the difference between us an chimps, is much, much bigger than the 3% would suggest.
Lee - yes, you misrepresented me, but it just gives me a chance to reiterate a point. Creation and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. God is clear that He created grass, fruit trees, marine life, birds, creeping things (God created liberals?), cattle, and humans. That leaves a lot of room for evolution. In fact I'll cede the entire Kingdom Fungi to evolution (I don't want you blaming your athlete's foot or crotch itch on God, Lee!)
CREATION STRIKES BACK: How Chimpanzees Devolved From Man is coming soon! That will clear this whole chromosomal snobbery thing right up.
Peter; you are right - science is in for a major purge. I have my ideas on this which I'd share on a different topic if there's any interest shown. Not sure how applicable this is to a religious board, but potentially catastrophically.
If your book is coming out soon, Robert, that would probably be a great time for this discussion. I'm actually quite curious, because I've never seen an IDer actually explain HOW mankind (or any of earth's creeping things) was created ... unless it was by tinkering with the DNA of another animal. So how did he tinker? Is there a DNA computer up in heaven with a wireless link to the pineal gland?I really do not see much point in just throwing up our hands and saying "God musta done it." I wanna know HOW if we're gonna take this seriously. What's the theory?
Lee - I haven't the slighest idea how God does things other than what is written in the Bible. But, I know what can't be done. 3 trillion base pairs of adenine (A), Thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C) cannot perfectly assemble themselves ramdomly, with perfect genes readily identifiable by perfect enzymes, to do complex tasks like metabolize, repel invaders, fix oneself, replicate oneself, and form a semi-permeable cell membrane ALL mediated by more perfect enzymes which can only be manufactured by perfect DNA. No God at work? Then, no life at work, wake up, it's all a Darwinian dream.
It's interesting seeing how all these arguments fit together. Christians everywhere just want to appreciate Jesus they "Shout". They don't want Doctrine, Apologetics, History, Science, Theology...Just good 'ol Evangelism - like David said.
I wish it was that easy. But Truth hurts. Which Jesus are we selling?
There's a guy in Vancouver Canada who claims to be Jesus - maybe those "Shouting" Christians are lining up to sell HIM? How do we know he isn't the real thing? I'd like Lee to answer that question? If the Mormons, J.W.'s and Muslims etc. have bits of usable truth then maybe Vancouver Jesus is somewhat acceptable as well?!
This is when we turn to trustworthy theologians, historians, and respected doctrine. If the Bible isn't the official Word of God then we might as well line up to worship any Jesus that pokes his head out. (Or does it only count if this Jesus does a fancy miracle?)
But if science is BIGGER and more trustworthy than Biblical Jesus then maybe we should just worship that. I'm sure God wouldn't mind. The atheists are already there...
You made a mistake Rod. Just because I said I was talking about evangelism doesn't mean I don't care about those other things. Are you the guy who goes to a church once, hears a sermon on a topic, and criticizes the pastor for not saying stuff on every other topic you care about? If you hear a sermon on evangelism, do you assume they don't care about doctrine? Why not try to assume the best about people? Geez, we've been talking on this board for years! The fact you hint that you think I don't care about such things makes me wonder if you're paying attention.
Besides that, your last statement is a false dichotomy. Is science bigger or more trustworthy then the Biblical Jesus? What does a circle smell like? What shape is red? It is almost a meaningless question. Do you get your kids vaccinated? When they get sick do you go to a doctor or just pray?
Your question is pointless, it just antagonizes people.
To me this use of argumentative subterfuge to sneak in the metaphysics of materialism needs to be challenged. In an argument, the definitions must remain unchanged. I agree. If someone defines evolution as a process that rules out God, then we certainly oppose that. Personally though, my opposition is just to argue that such a definition is wrong AND THEN to point out all the Christians who believe the process of evolution and are still Christians. I don't think arguing for intelligent design need come into it. This is just me, as someone who doesn't have an opinion and is not really interested in studying science.
Rod, your concern about the Jesus in Vancouver may be unnecessary. It has happened before, as in this instance:And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.
So if this man is aiding the Kingdom, leave him to his good works; if he is not, he will not fool anyone who is seeking the Kingdom.
Now that's funny Lee. :DThat was not against you David. It was just to flesh out a larger problem. Thanks for playing...
David wrote: "To me this use of argumentative subterfuge to sneak in the metaphysics of materialism needs to be challenged. In an argument, the definitions must remain unchanged. I agree. If someone defines e..."
Perhaps we're belaboring this point too much. The trouble has to do with the word "evolution." The proponents always embed within the definition the stipulation that the process occurs by chance (random) without direction. So how would this play out? Let's take your conversation ...
AND THEN to point out all the Christians who believe the process of evolution and are still Christians.
A knowledgeable person would then ask: "these evolution believing Christians, do they believe the process happens completely by chance without direction by a higher being?"
If you say "no," then they'll say "they don't believe in evolution. They believe in some kind of teleological intelligent design."
If you say "yes," then they will reply, "well you've conceded that the Christian God has no role to play in the origin of life on this or any other planet. I thought He was supposed to be the Creator and Sustainer of the universe."
I can see disagreeing with some versions of intelligent design (why can't intelligent design be self correcting like other theories), but at some point I think God enters the equation.
At the end of the day, one has to end up believing whatever is true. Reality consists of those things that don't go away when one stops believing in them.
I haven't really thought this through, but why does evolution "by chance" preclude God's involvement? For example, the eye developed at least eight different times through evolutionary history, each time in response to God's light. Is that by chance or by expectation? I guess the worry is that if it's all "by chance," then the species which finally developed a big enough brain to comprehend God might look like an octopus, but so what? Haven't we moved beyond the idea that "in God's image" means two hands and two feet?
Rod - science isn't bigger than God. He created it all. Science in it's puny, plodding manner is just slowly getting around to discovering His works. There's no need to bash science, just atheistic scientists!
Best quote ever:Peter: " Reality consists of those things that don't go away when one stops believing in them."
Now that's fun to think about. I'll ponder it. :D
Lee statement:" the eye developed at least eight different times through evolutionary history..."
Says WHO? And they've proven this HOW? It wouldn't be hard to poke holes in this one.
Lee wrote: "I haven't really thought this through, but why does evolution "by chance" preclude God's involvement? For example, the eye developed at least eight different times through evolutionary history, eac..."Lee, I guess to me it's inherent in the meaning of "by chance" or "by accident." If I say an action happened by accident, it means it happened without my intending it. If God is involved in directing evolution, and it looks like "chance" to us, it would be like finding in a monopoly game that all the die rolls were determined by a games master who ensured the results conformed to a random distribution. That very argument to me makes the claim of chance unverifiable in the presence of an intelligence (he could choose to make it look like a random distribution -- perhaps to make atheism possible as an exercise of free will.)
I think when Materialists use the term "chance," they are ruling out an agent such as God and they have embedded that idea in the Theory of Evolution.
Peter, I think there's some confusion about what it means to be by chance. Random mutation is just that - random. But the direction of evolution is far from random, because those traits that are beneficial are those that will be retained.Thus, if God created light with a purpose of life in mind, he surely knew life would turn to the light. Vision, and the eye, would develop. How could it not? Evolution is not directionless, it steers toward the life forms that are most advantageous for the environment in which they are placed. Thus, God does not have to tinker with DNA to achieve his end; he merely needs to set the atmosphere and start life rolling, with this fantastic gene machine of random mutation.
I actually agree with Lee on this one. God creates all species necessary for the survival of the planet, then leaves the rest to natural selection. I really hope God DIDN'T create a tapeworm, vampire bat, or hippopatamus.
I do agree also that God created all species and quit by the end of creation week. But not much has changed since then. Dogs are still dogs. Elephants are still elephants. And talking donkeys do pop up every now and then...
Lee wrote: "Peter, I think there's some confusion about what it means to be by chance. Random mutation is just that - random. But the direction of evolution is far from random, because those traits that are be..."Evolution is not directionless, it steers toward the life forms that are most advantageous for the environment in which they are placed.
Lee, I think we have some measure of agreement here. Let me recast and play your point back to you to make sure I understood it correctly.
You are saying, God could design the system in such a way that a random process such as random mutation/natural selection would be able to find these pre-designed niches and so develop the complexity of life as we know it. To use an analogy, God designs the pinball machine with reachable holes in all the right places and evolution (Darwinism) would randomly shoot the ball bearings until they find the requisite holes giving rise to life in all its complexity.
To me that's a variation of intelligent design, because you are pushing the design onto the system while leaving the process as random. It's an optimization routine using a genetic algorithm. Now I, from my reading of the data, I think this is becoming more and more unlikely because the jump requirements far exceed what can be managed given the most optimistic age of the universe, the speed of chemical reactions, and the complexity of the change required. But let's say, for the sake of argument, Lee that you wake up tomorrow and you suddenly see all of the intermediate steps that makes this theory viable (the missing A1 to An in Al`s argument.)
First of all, materialists would not agree with you (they would erroneously claim your theory is unscientific because it evokes a Creator, designer and teleology.) They would furthermore insist on a cosmology that is also was based on a random processes. So for example they would speculate (without any possible evidence -- as far as I can see) that multiple universes exist that were generated by some random process, and we only know about our universe because of survivor bias, having won the greatest conceivable lottery. To me one always bumps up against a philosophical filter from the science high priesthood that`s applied which steers science into the materialism philosophical corner.
In summary, I think your idea is a possibility (I think this is the kind of idea that Francis Collins advances with his BioLogos), still as far as I can see the evidence is against it, and as time goes by and we realize that there are no such things as "simple" life forms (only very, very very complex ones), that possibility to me is growing more and more remote.
This is the argument Al was making on page 69-71.
Rod wrote: "Best quote ever:Peter: " Reality consists of those things that don't go away when one stops believing in them."
Now that's fun to think about. I'll ponder it. :D"
It is a good quote isn`t it Rod. It`s not mine -- I heard a speaker Bruxy Cavey use it and it stuck with me. I don`t know if he thought it up or heard it from someone else.
Good, Peter! I think we do agree.The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and the engine much better understood now that biogenetics is involved. But mysteries do remain about the process. I see both sides as rather pedantic at this point ... IDers holding tight to the idea of a creator and materialists fighting the idea with all their might ... I just see no need to pick a side, being far more comfortable on the fence.
I do think if religious folks would disengage from the idea that this creator matches their concept of God, or plays a role in everyday experiences, ID would get more traction. It seems much more scientific to postulate a creator without the baggage of saying he's omni-everything, looks like us, and wants to take us to heaven if we bow down and worship him.
Lee wrote: "Good, Peter! I think we do agree.The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and the engine much better understood now that biogenetics is involved. But mysteries do remain about the process. I s..."
Lee, I think as far as Darwinism is concerned, we see it the same way in terms of claims and process.
We're still far apart in terms of evaluating its reality and usefulness. As you said:
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and the engine much better understood now that biogenetics is involved.
I would say (to reiterate) that there is reasonable evidence only for the most modest form of Darwinism. The form that's presented to elementary, high school, and undergraduate students confounds science and philosophy and many of its claims are unverifiable. With regards to the mechanism, I think with each new advance (from my perspective) Darwinism is further and further out of business.
Enough already, having stated where we ended up, perhaps we should move on. I agree with David that this discussion is mostly a red herring (I hope I'm citing your perspective correctly, David), and most people become Christ-Followers when they meet the living Christ, not (in my view) because they begin to challenge the relentless indoctrination they received on Darwinism in their schooling and through the media.
Question on Chapter 5: Evil committed by ChristiansIn chapter 5, Floyd raises the contention which has been popularized by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and others that religion is evil.
Al argues that tyrants have to appeal to a "good" to justify "evil." Do you think that is true? Why or why not?
Kazmaier, Peter (2013-05-14). Questioning Your Way to Faith: Learning to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable (Kindle Locations 1012-1013). Word Alive Press. Kindle Edition. Pages 40-46.
If anyone is in a rush for the exact role Evolution plays in the scheme of the natural world vs. Creation, they will be sorely disappointed. Evolution is here to stay as microevolution is a foregone conclusion. That intraspecies gene pool improvement is possible so that an organism can better explore niches or recover from an "act of God" is not even disputed by genetic researchers. Macroevolution defined as one species becoming another by spatiation, mutation, or natural selection isn't disputed either within a confined context. Within some kingdoms, especially monera and fungi, individual species are so closely related that interspecies gene transfer is widely regarded as a fait accompli. So, like it or not, evolution exists, so the question becomes to what extent? That will not be answered soon as it's one thing for a beetle to evolve into another beetle in close proximity to avoid extinction, but quite another for a wily, tetrapod (similar to a coyote) to abandon the land, take on marine appendages and behavior and eventually emerge millions of years later as a whale.
Good question Peter. Not sure if I am going to answer it.I think saying "religion" is evil is a meaningless statement. Almost like saying movies are evil or music is evil or nature is evil. It is too general a term. Which religion? Whose religion?
Now, I think there is a good critique in there somewhere though. Usually the argument is made sloppily and easy to refute, but when framed like this I find it challenging:
1. If there really was a God, those who are God's followers ought to live more moral then other people.
2. Those who claim to be God's followers are not more moral then other people.
3. Therefore, there is no God.
I find that challenging because it holds Christians to their own standard. Simply saying, "Christians have done evil so there is no God" is weak to me. Does that make sense?
As for non-religious people having to appeal to good to justify evil...I'll have to look that part of the book up again as I can't remember it now. And I have a busy weekend, so I'll chime in next week.
Restarting the "Does God create evil" discussion in QYWTF ...In another thread (Is Evil forced by God for His own purposes?), David began the discussion by citing Exodus 4:21 NASB
The LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. (NASB [Exodus] 4:21) [Message 1]
On the other side of the question, I thought Rod summed it up nicely:
Sunday morning part of the text I'm preaching on is James 1:13-15. James writes, "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.'"
The answer to your question seems pretty clear to me. God does not cause us to do evil. He is perfectly holy and would not lead us to do something contrary to His will. Any Calvinism that suggests otherwise would seem flawed to me. [Message 40]
In Chapter 3 Floyd and Al talk about the origin of evil. What if Floyd had raised Exodus 4:21 to show that God was orchestrating evil? How do I respond to that?
Are those two positions contradictory i.e. that God never tempts anyone and that God hardened Pharoah's heart?
If I make the leap and claim the James verse would rigorously imply that God would not harden Pharoah's heart, would that lead to a contradiction. Even though this sounds like a contradiction, it may not be if the two "hardenings" occur at different times or in a different sense. Non-contradictory in the sense of a different time doesn't make sense to since we are talking about a core characteristic of God -- so what about a different sense?
Here's my thinking on this conundrum: when we describe things or beings at the edge of our knowledge (e.g. the properties electrons), we often do so in apparent contradictions (particle and wave). We know these are limitations of our conceptions based on our incomplete models (metaphors), not an inherent contradiction in the subject itself (I presume an electron does not ask will I behave as a wave or particle today? -- it just is).
In the case of God, my own limitations mean I have to see God in two contexts, one in time, where he appears to me like a person that I could interact with, and outside of time where He's a sustainer of the cosmos. To keep me from getting too settled into one view, the Bible simultaneously presents both, but they are showing us aspects of God in different senses.
When I see Pharoah hardening his own heart, that's a picture inside of time, where Pharoah is the causative agent. When I see God hardening Pharoah's heart, it is the picture of God outside of time, sustaining the whole cosmos. He has given Pharoah free will, and inside of time Pharoah has chosen, but God has to sustain every action in agreement with His delegated authority (after all God has to follow His own rules), so at this level of granularity, he hardens Pharoah's heart in accordance with Pharoah's decision.
As I re-read this post, it occurred to me that the sense of the question, assumes God is inside of time (the word "forced" to me implies this is happening within time). Perhaps even how we ask the questions already pushes into an incomplete picture of God.
So what do you think?
Peter - it would seem Christians are very much like Don Quixote when it comes to evil. We feel an acute level of responsiblility to defeat it, we muck up our chances at every opportunity, and we are held in high ridicule by the perfidious who seemingly are immune to its consequences. Then, is it any wonder we posit a God who will trump our ineptitude to deal evil a crushing blow IN OUR LIFETIME. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be high on His agenda. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart, either by himself, by God, or by a combination thereof had nothing to do with evil. God had a chosen people to deal with who marvelled at miraculous events. Plagues, locusts, and dead first-born were merely first-rate attention getters for a very stiff-necked people.
Robert wrote: "Peter - it would seem Christians are very much like Don Quixote when it comes to evil. We feel an acute level of responsiblility to defeat it, we muck up our chances at every opportunity, and we ar..."Robert, I appreciate your response to message 98, on my attempt to reconcile "people hardening their own hearts" with "God hardening their hearts." I read your post several times and I'm not clear on what you're saying so let me try to play it back to you. I think the key statements are:
The hardening of Pharaoh's heart, either by himself, by God, or by a combination thereof had nothing to do with evil. God had a chosen people to deal with who marvelled at miraculous events. Plagues, locusts, and dead first-born were merely first-rate attention getters for a very stiff-necked people.
I think you're saying that I'm jousting with windmills (Don Quixote reference) when I try to explain this apparent paradox since I'm not seeing that God has a multi-generational plan involving Israel and these events arising out of the "hardening" were designed to attract Israel's attention. Am I getting it?
http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/1...
(oops, that was a bad link - i fixed it)