When Young Earth Creationist Christians discover the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it can result in a crisis of faith. This sad reality is not the fault of good science. It is the fault of an illusion of reality fostered by YEC teaching. Hi Cliff,
I was young earth creationist and I had couple questions about how you deal with certain issues. If nature can prove everything, morality, existence, and things like religion are we just being delusional believing in God? We could just be lucky SOB's. I hope not because frankly belief in God is the only thing keeping me from nihilism. I want desperately to believe in God, but if nature doesn't point to God then I'm having a hard time believing.
Anyway, thanks for your time
Nate
Nate,
I am with you ... without God in my reality, nihilism is the only alternative. But God is very much at the center of my worldview. My view of reality would take way too much time and space for an email response. But I'll try to give you a taste. You can find fuller explanations in the various articles on my blog.
I do believe that nature can explain most of our reality. I believe that God is generally non-interventionist, because his purposes are being fulfilled as nature plays out its course. His intervention in the affairs of men are in response to people of faith, who invite it. That is the essence of the prayer Jesus taught us in the Sermon on the Mount.
While I agree that there are evidences that altruism and some morality have developed through evolution, Dawkins is far too overreaching in his optimism that evolution will explain all. You mentioned nature explaining existence. In my view, it does not. I see no way that evolution will ever answer the ultimate question of why anything exists at all. "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is a question that for me only has one answer: a Creator God!
On my blog you can find a post entitled "Reasons for My Belief (full essay)" (Scroll down to "OTHER POSTS OF INTEREST" and you will find the link about midway in the list.) I offer five of the most compelling reasons for my faith in God. Perhaps you will find them helpful.
Nate, I must tell you that since I accepted the findings of science in regard to cosmic and biological evolution, I have found many answers to difficult questions about God and reality. The truths revealed in the cosmos, the fossil record, and our own DNA may at first be jarring to Christian faith. But when we stop resisting these truths, and begin the work of combining them with the revealed truths in the Bible, the exciting journey toward a fuller understanding of truth begins. And I am jazzed about that journey. Life and reality have never made more sense to me than they do now! I encourage you to keep asking questions, keep searching for truth, and do not abandon you belief in God! You will be rewarded!
Stay in touch!
Cliff
Cliff,
Thanks for your time. I will read your more of your stuff. I just needed some encouragement to keep going in my faith.
thanks
Nate
66 comments:
Hi Cliff,
You were probably expecting this from me.
This is also a false dichotomy;
"God or Nihilism."
What about reality? Art, science, music, literature, love and family? Challenges, work, co-operation and teamwork?
I am both seriously worried and seriously fascinated by such a restricted outlook on the world.
As you know, I see no convincing evidence for any of the gods. So from my point of view it is scary that you are telling me that without a god you can only see nihilism. From my viewpoint this means you are in for one very depressing period and perhaps even a dangerously depressing period anytime you open your eyes.
Bringing kids up with their whole worldview dangling by such an delicate thread and with a gaping chasm beneath them is doubly scary.
Seems like you are in a position where a crisis of faith might well lead to a full blown life crisis, no wonder the evidence for god (or lack of it) is so irrelevant to you.
Like the man with vertigo clinging to a cliff - don't look down.
- - -
But then that does just seem to be a myth put about by the religious.
There are millions of stories of people who lose their faith and so are better able to thrive as full blown human beings and who don't sink into nihilism as you imply.
That gives me hope for the future of humanity.
Regards,
Psi
Psi,
I appreciate your concern, and your point of view. I really do. And yes, I did expect you to comment as you did.
Nihilism means different things to different people. For some, it may be the equivalent of utter despair. For others, nihilism implies the nonexistence of any values (purpose, morals, beauty, meaning, etc.) apart from those we make (make up?) for ourselves.
I have no doubt that you have found meaning in art, science, music, literature, love and family. I have no doubt that "Cliff the atheist" would do likewise. Yet such value are ultimately products of our own contrivances, are they not? They do not exist outside of our own minds, our own choices. For the atheist, there can be no ultimate, transcendent values.
And that is what I mean by nihilism. Psi, once you have immersed yourself in the wonder and beauty of Christian faith, the atheistic alternative is hopelessly empty by comparison. We came from nothing, and no one. Our cosmos is headed toward nothingness. We have only this moment in which to seek out, and perhaps find, some transient meaning, some ephemeral value.
That is not to say that if I learned tomorrow through some incontrovertible evidence that God indeed does not exist, that I would fall into the the "full blown life crisis" you imagine. But it does mean that life would never again have anything like the textures of meaning, purpose, hope, and transcendence which it holds for me today. It would be nihilism for me; one in which I would "make the best of it" and muddle through with my own manufactured set of values.
I don't mean to say you are merely muddling through. I'm sure it doesn't feel like that for you. But compared to the splendors and heights of my present worldview, the best worldview of Psi would pale into that for me.
Great comment, Psi!
I've experienced this "crisis of faith". Indeed, it has its lows because the rug on your whole perspective gets pulled out from underneath you. The things you put meaning in -- God, the feeling that you are his special creation, the hope that you will live forever, the idea that you are on a course that is in alignment with the master of the universe, the communion with fellow believers -- these things make life meaningful. Take them away and you can see how people would assume the alternative is nihilism.
Cliff said of the materialist stance, "Yet such value are ultimately products of our own contrivances, are they not?"
I'm with Dawkins here. If you accept the stance that natural forces instantiated and evolved life to the point of making complex, sentient creatures who could claim to be God's image, then behavior, happiness, and morality are indeed products of our own contrivances. Evolution can (and apparently did) do it all!
I've been on your mountain top, Cliff. And I've been through the valley of despair when shedding Christian belief. I even get nostalgic for my old beliefs that God was guiding me. Who wouldn't want the ear of such a Thing? But the view from the mountain top I'm on now is great. It's so real!
But the view from the mountain top I'm on now is great. It's so real!
There are two things about mountaintops that I keep telling my friends:
There's no food on the mountaintop - it all grows in the valleys.
A mountaintop is where one looks down on everyone else.
Hi, Psi:
Your comments brought this to mind:
Arthur: All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's something big and sinister going on in the world.
Slartibartfast: No, that's perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the universe gets that…. Perhaps I'm old and tired, but I think that the chances of finding out what's actually going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say, "Hang the sense of it," and keep yourself busy. I'd much rather be happy than right any day.
Arthur Dent: And are you?
Slartibartfast: Ah, no.
[laughs, snorts]
Slartibartfast: Well, that's where it all falls down, of course.
Enjoy!
Rich G.
Rich G.
Thanks Rich,
I thought you brought up the famous atheist Douglas Adams previously didn't you?
Anyway folks, by divine intervention presumably, I have spotted a new video which makes my point about science and humanity better than I could ever do it.
I was going to suggest watching COSMOS but this kind of does the same thing in 9 minutes;
,invisible beauty
- - -
We have spoken of your divine morals before so I won't spend long on them but in a nutshell;
a) You pick and choose them from the bible anyway, using your evolved sense of morals and your brain power. To be fair you have to, as many of the moral teachings of the bible contradict each other.
b) The god of the old testament appears immoral to any at least slightly honest appraisal.
c) Should you care for your dying mother or put her in her in a home whilst you rush off to go look for your child - missing in another country? No help from the bible for that one.
d) Is something right because god says so? If so would something wrong become right if he said so? In which case there are no standards, just God's whim.
If not, then why do you need god to say what is right and wrong.
e) Morals are explained by the way we evolved.
- - -
I recently started studying photosynthesis - it is truly mind blowingly amazing.
Plants are more beautiful to me now than they have ever been.
AND I am pretty sure that what I learned is actually true.
And there are books and books and books and books and books MORE.
AND we have hardly even started!
Regards,
Psi (your happy atheist)
Hi, Psi:
I thought you brought up the famous atheist Douglas Adams previously didn't you?
Yes, I did - I just forgot which forum I was on, and when it was.
d) Is something right because god says so? If so would something wrong become right if he said so? In which case there are no standards, just God's whim.
If not, then why do you need god to say what is right and wrong.
This is something that I challenge my fellow believers with. I do not accept that Right and Wrong were created by divine fiat. Things are not "right" because "the Bible says so", any more than oxygen has an atomic weight of 16.0 "because my chemistry manual says so". Just as the chemistry manual is seen as an authoritative reference to the pre-existing and accepted properties of the elements (although is not an exhaustive one), The Bible may be considered similar to another kind of reference book - (admittedly not exhaustive, certainly confusing in places, but I believe authoritative nevertheless) a reference book on the human heart and mind.
Thanks Rich,
That sounds like a pretty rational kind of irrationality, if you know what I mean.
Must be rubbing off on you ;-)
Cheers,
Psi
Thanks,Psi!
That sounds like a pretty rational kind of irrationality, if you know what I mean.
Must be rubbing off on you ;-)
Would I be considered even more irrational if I wrote my belief that moral standards pre-dated the formation of our universe? "Before time" so to speak?
Rich G.
Hi Rich,
You mean just like any "concept" I suppose.
Maths, astrology, father Xmas and indeed atheism are also "immortal" using this logic.
Btw are you allowed to use logical arguments when you can't logically prove that logic works?
Godel was a real spoil spor wasn't he?
I find the counter argument to him is "a cheese sandwhich".
The problem with the notion of absolute meaning gets into the same argument as the creationist who asks, "What created the big bang?" The logic is that there was a beginning of the universe so there must have been a supernatural force to get the ball rolling because universes don't just arise out of nothing! This shelves the argument of eternity into this thing we call "God", and permits the rolling of any notion of pre-bang history and post apocalyptic happenings into one's theology. Doing so, we can imagine that Evil emerged even before the universe and that the whole universe is God's response to this Evil, as Cliff speculates.
What throws me for a loop is what it could possibly even mean for a supernatural force to have meaning itself to then provide this "absolute". We've anthropomorphized God. Much as we want a president who is one of us, so we make our deities.
Let's think this through. Take John 3:16. What does it mean for God, who is love, to love the world? What I'm getting at is that we are so tied to our biology and our natural environment that when we feel emotion, we really feel! There are synapses firing, electrochemical reactions throughout the body where we feel longing, desire, hope, gratitude, comfort, etc.
The idea of sin from an evolutionary creationist perspective, is that we needed our bodies to evolve to the point of being so cognizant of God, that then we could deny him. That is, molecules began to coalesce, eventually gave rise to life, and multicellular organisms eventually developed these brains that could understand God's law and consciously choose to go against it. I accept that such thinking arose 100% naturally. What I don't understand is how thinking and meaning could possibly come about immaterially. How can a bodiless, immaterial concept originate out of nothing? What can it possibly mean for God to want to create? You can shelve the argument and say that God simply is and always has been this "absolute meaning", in which case, I would think Evil must have always been present, and I can't understand what God was doing with Evil for the pre-eternity before the big-bang. Really, what could even be this "mind of God" who has plans and desires for me, but no material form to scheme, to develop a moral code, to emote, or feel?
cliff > "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is a question that for me only has one answer: a Creator God!
What vanity to proclaim why something is when decade by decade we are reminded that we have only the haziest notion what that something is!
Isaac,
Indeed, the nature of reality, the nature of existence itself is baffling, and becoming increasingly so. But I hardly see how that fact mitigates against the argument that existence, however mystifying, suggests a First Cause, a Creative Force greater than and outside of the existence in which we find ourselves. Please explain.
And, so that I understand you, by "vanity" did you mean emptiness and futility, or excessively self-congratulatory pride?
Hi Cliff,
"Asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole."
Hawking
Regards,
Psi
PS other physicists are already asking this question - kind of - in a higher dimensional frame - the ecpyrotic hypothesis is one possibility.
PPS gap for rent - supernatural people only should apply for residence - again?
Psi,
Hawking's simile fails: there is nothing north of the north pole, and we all understand that. Not only might there be something before the Big Bang, physicists are busying themselves in an effort to identify it.
Why do you chide me for looking to what might lie beyond the Big Bang, and in the same breath praise the physicists attempting the same search? But they are really not addressing the same question, are they? They are merely pushing the problem back. My question is not, "How did the Big Bang happen?" Even if the ekpyrotic hypothesis proves useful, we will still be asking "why are there branes and strings?"
How do you answer "Why is there anything instead of nothing?" Your beginning hypothesis will lead you to shrug your shoulders, and answer "that's unknowable." My hypothesis suggests an answer filled with purpose, ultimate meaning, hope. Excuse me for failing to see how the materialist hypothesis is somehow superior.
cliff > by "vanity"...
I meant both, but with emphasis on the personal vanity common to us as people - I'd suggest that such proclamations are all about our social and emotional needs.
cliff > But I hardly see how that fact mitigates against...
It ought to be a reminder of how strongly we should say - we don't know what we're talking about. But then there's personal vanity, and our social and emotional needs.
And that awareness of personal vanity and illusion is perhaps why the Buddhist tradition responds to such imponderable questions with silence.
And within the Christian tradition - “I say that God would provide the answer to that question (Why is there anything instead of nothing?) because, since we do not know what God is, we do not have an answer to our question.”
p50 The Logic of Mysticism, Herbert McCabe
Hi Cliff,
Just quoting Hawking - no intention of chiding - hence the point that folks are looking into this gap.
At what point do you count a gap filled enough so that you have to move your creator back another step?
Just wondering.
Regards,
Psi
Psi,
It really doesn't matter how far back we are able to trace natural causation. The alternative to a Creator who set it all into motion is an endless line of natural steps, an eternity past of matter. I find belief in such an endless string of mindless, material events incredible. A supernatural originator is much more sensible to me.
But you forget one very important point. Christians do not merely say "There must be a God because how else did all this get here," Christians have other reasons (granted, many are subjective and experiential) for belief in God. So when we come to this question of ultimate origins, we have what is for us a sensible answer.
What brought up this discussion was Nate's statement that nature explains existence (see OP). I suggested that it does not. Do you agree with me? And if not, how do you propose that nature "explains" existence?
Hi, Psi:
RG> Would I be considered even more irrational if I wrote my belief that moral standards pre-dated the formation of our universe? "Before time" so to speak?
Psi> You mean just like any "concept" I suppose.
RG> No. I'm talking about a fundamental sense of acceptable behavior between individuals free to make moral choices.
Psi> Maths, astrology, father Xmas and indeed atheism are also "immortal" using this logic.
RG> No, these are temporal constructs.
Psi> Btw are you allowed to use logical arguments when you can't logically prove that logic works?
RG> That's what axioms are for.
Rich G.
Cliff said, "I find belief in such an endless string of mindless, material events incredible. A supernatural originator is much more sensible to me."
Why can't it be sufficient for universes to forever spawn without this notion that there must be a deity out there with a Master Plan of dealing with Evil by subscribing to the fleeting custom of animal sacrifice practiced by a group of sheep herding primates on some lonely planet to the point of becoming one such animal to be sacrificed himself?
I think part of Isaac's vanity claim is that anthropomorphizing the architect of all universes to such a crazy barbaric ritual can be nothing but vain, despite the Christian stance that God "so loved" and humbled himself to become one of us.
On a side, but related note, I gave my twin brother Gordon Glover's video link. He watched all 16 episodes and thought they were "excellent". He said that since God created the universe, the natural study of that universe should be complementary to theology.
He then went on to describe Jesus' notion of "life" as described in the book of John as one completely separate from the body. If there is a spirit world that is separate from the natural world, then science and religion would, indeed, share two separate spaces. It then becomes easy to imagine a spirit that exists outside the natural world -- one that can create universes, deal with Evil spirits, and pull on heartstrings during alter calls. We can even imagine our own spirits as separate from our bodies such that when we die, they are whisked to some spirit place forever. It also makes the abortion issue that much more pertinent, because if a zygote contains a soul, then aborting it is equivalent to murder.
So, Cliff, you are claiming, like my brother, that this spiritual realm exists. We monists claim that it does not. Neither of us can necessarily provide substantial proof either way to alter each others' opinions. But I think you have to admit, the YEC position is much more firmly rooted in such a dualistic stance than yours. If we humans had a common ancestor with a fly that I or Obama would gladly smoosh without hesitation -- because we assume it has no soul -- then I reasonably follow evolution to humans and conjoin the soul and body.
"How do you propose that nature "explains" existence?"
I believe you are assuming that there is a reason for it all. Again, what does it mean for a supernatural force to have reason? Reason implies intent and longing. What could it possibly mean for a supernatural force who created, and for all intents and purposes is the universe, to want it, and interface with it in a particular way?
Let me provide what I think is an evolutionary creationist response to my question. If God employed evolution, then God's character and intent is delivered through evolutionary processes. Now, evolution has no direct intents, but if we plug in the simple rule that what tends to survive and reproduce, in turn, tends to survive and reproduce, and in an environment of limited resources, then what you have is the formation of ever complex assemblies vying for those resources. In due course, strategies emerge, including possibly sacrificial practices and altruism. The assemblies apparently have reasons for their behavior, and in this simulation, sometimes seem to be having fun.
If there is a supervisor who started the game, then we have to ask why he started the game and what his intents are with it.
If there is a spirit world, I have to ask where the distinction is between me, monkeys, my dog, mice, earthworms, and bacteria on the spirit scale. I have to wonder how a spirit can exist outside of a body, be it my spirit, or God's spirit, and how spirits feel, spend their time, and interact. I have to ask (and fear) what the spirits' intentions are for me, and who/what they even are. I have to ponder how God and Evil vie for my thoughts. I have to question how prayer intervenes, really. In this case a supernatural originator is much LESS sensible to me.
That should have been "altar call" instead of "alter call". Freudian slip!
Tom,
A lot to respond to!
1) You assume that I would think animal sacrifice was part of God’s Master Plan. I do not.
2) You assume my view is that all living things have souls. Where did I ever imply that?
3) You suggest that behind my request, “How do you propose that nature “explains” existence?” is an assumption of “reason”. That is not my assumption. To the contrary, my assumption is that, in the materialist view, there is no purpose, no reason. I am simply asking for some inkling of an explanation for eternally existing, purposeless and mindless matter, organizing itself from time to time into incredibly complex universes such as the one we inhabit. You offer no thoughts about that.
4) If there is a supervisor who started the game, then we have to ask why he started the game and what his intents are with it. Certainly! That is exactly what I am doing!
5) My view is that lower animals are not spirit beings. So I do not trouble myself with some of the questions you list in your final paragraph.
6) Yes, an assumption of a deity does suggest humans may be responsible beings, beings that ought to discover and respond to the purposes of their Creator. Somewhere, you lost me ... how does this make theism less sensible than atheism?
cliff > What brought up this discussion was Nate's statement that nature explains existence (see OP). I suggested that it does not.
And then you went on to proclaim that God explains existence - which just swaps one mystery for another without providing anything that stands as explanation.
You might have suggested to Nate that "nature explains existence" seems a lot like "existence explains existence" which is to take "existence" as an unexplained brute fact.
Tom > > If there is a supervisor who started the game, then we have to ask why he started the game and what his intents are with it.
Cliff > Certainly! That is exactly what I am doing!
"Very frequently the man who sees himself as an atheist is not denying the existence of some answer to the mystery of how come there is anything instead of nothing, he is denying what he thinks or has been told is a religious answer to this question. He thinks or has been told that religious people, and especially Christians, claim to have discovered what the answer is, that there is some grand architect of the universe who designed it, just like Basil Spence only bigger and less visible, that there is a Top Person in the universe who issues arbitrary decrees for the rest of the persons and enforces them because he is the most powerful being around. Now if denying this claim makes you an atheist, then I and Thomas Aquinas and a whole Christian tradition are atheistic too."
p7, God Matters, Herbert McCabe
Hi, Isaac:
You might have suggested to Nate that "nature explains existence" seems a lot like "existence explains existence" which is to take "existence" as an unexplained brute fact.
Existence *is* an unexplained brute fact. Whether or not we have discovered or theorized 'causes', there is, at the base of it all, an unexplained brute fact: We are here. We don't know *why*, we can only study and debate about *how*.
Isaac (II):
"Very frequently the man who sees himself as an atheist..."
p7, God Matters, Herbert McCabe
Is this your position, or you throwing this out for discussion?
Rich G.
Isaac,
Well, if we are constrained to Herbert McCabe's charicature of god, count me as an atheist, too! At least, I hope such a god does not exist.
This is so often the problem in communicating with skeptics, even one so well versed in Christianity as my friend Tom (see earlier comments). Skeptics tend to define God (perhaps using the strange notions of certain religious people) and then deny that such a ridiculous being could exist. (See my my earlier post on why I agree with Dawkins that his "god" does not exist!) Using this tactic, we can define anything out of existence. And this may have been McCabe's point, though I have not read it in context.
Christians (including myself!) are often guilty of the same straw man approach in our discussions about atheism. But if we keep talking, we might come to understand each other. Maybe?
Isaac writes,
And then you went on to proclaim that God explains existence - which just swaps one mystery for another without providing anything that stands as explanation.
True. So its a game of "choose your mystery."
Mystery #1: Mindless, purposeless matter is eternally existent, and occasionally organizes itself into incredibly complex universes, such as the one we occupy. We have no clue how or why.
Mystery #2: A purposeful, highly intelligent Being created our universe, perhaps ex nihilo. After postulating such a Being, questions of how or why become moot.
On one level, Paley's watch makes profound sense.
nonsense?
I think it is just simply honest to say we don't know.
All this other stuff is just an argument from ignorance backed up with the argument from personal incredulity.
Sort of an admission of defeat to my eyes.
Sorry.
Psi
Mystery #3
cliff > A purposeful, highly intelligent Being created our universe...
Was that intended to be caricature?
"...religious people, and especially Christians, claim to have discovered what the answer is, that there is some grand architect of the universe who designed it..."
Hi,Psi:
I think it is just simply honest to say we don't know.
I agree.
But there is more room for uncertainty in the "I believe there is..." than in the "I know there is not..."
Isaac:
Cliff can answer for his impression, but here is the false caricature I see:
...that there is a Top Person in the universe who issues arbitrary decrees for the rest of the persons and enforces them because he is the most powerful being around.
Rich G.
1) You assume that I would think animal sacrifice was part of God’s Master Plan. I do not.
If it was not part of God's plan, he promoted it (e.g. denied Cain's offering of fruits and vegetables and liked Abel's animal offering), and chose it as how he would interface with humans (i.e. Jesus as sacrificial lamb).
2) You assume my view is that all living things have souls. Where did I ever imply that?
I did not say that you said all living things have souls. I'm saying the evolutionary position makes having a soul separate from the body a difficult argument.
3) ...You offer no thoughts about that.
My meaning of life cannot be scribbled in a comment, nor do I find it really static to verbally relay anyway. I will say this, however. In looking for any grand schemes, I often look to other parts of biology. My dog loves his frisbee. Why should he have this desire? Evolutionarily, you can say that this fetching is a modification of his hunting instinct. But that argument somewhat breaks down. He fetches even when he's not hungry and he has never chased birds. Furthermore, why should he keep his eye on the sky while simultaneously darting around obstacles and then make every effort to catch the thing, only to drop it back at my feet to do it again? From his perspective, there is no "why". There is just enjoyment of the moment and appreciation for me throwing his toy.
Now, if having a soul is having the ability to ask "why" questions, it can certainly add a qualitatively different experience to life. If a why question cannot be answered, however, it doesn't make everything else meaningless, nor does it warrant interjecting unprovable stories to fill in the gaps.
4-6 I am saying that theism has a lot of grappling with issues when you start interjecting unprovable caricatures of a supreme being. You know my take -- it's a square peg and round hole when you start trying to tie the natural universe with a personal God. You might claim that I threw my hands up in the air at the prospect of going down the path you are traveling, but I'd rather think of it as acknowledging the dead end early and making the most of the material world we inhabit.
Tom,
I was not asking you for your "meaning of life". I acknowledge that you have found sufficient meaning to make life livable, enjoyable. My question was as stated in number 3 of this comment. So far, no materialist has offered any thoughts beyond simply saying that this is an unknowable mystery. Is that supposed to be superior to belief in a Creator?
(and, by the way, Psi, I have never —intentionally—used language to suggest that "I know". I am with you! I agree, we do not know. You have a conjecture that all this happens without a deity. I have a conjecture that all this happens with one.)
Tom writes "... nor does it warrant interjecting unprovable stories to fill in the gaps." Why is that so, if "unprovable stories" fit the data better, as I believe they do, than the alternative? "Interjecting unprovable stories" is exactly what happens in criminal court rooms every day.
Psi,
"Nonsense?" So, if you stumbled upon a watch in the heather, but you had no clue as to its origins, would it be a mistake to assume it was most likely manufactured and assembled by a watchmaker?
Hi, Tom:
Cliff: You assume that I would think animal sacrifice was part of God’s Master Plan. I do not.
Tom: If it was not part of God's plan, he promoted it (e.g. denied Cain's offering of fruits and vegetables and liked Abel's animal offering), and chose it as how he would interface with humans (i.e. Jesus as sacrificial lamb).
You should have seen the reaction I got when I was teaching a Bible study out of Hebrews, and I stated that the problem with Cain's offering was not that it was vegetable produce. I let it set for a week then proved that the problem was his attitude (for his offering actually would have been acceptable under Levitical guidelines).
And I think the picture of Jesus as sacrificial lamb was a picture that the people of that day could relate to. I never believed that God actually enjoyed watching people cutting up animals thinking that doing so would wash away their sins.
I'm trying to remember... I think there was a famous author who wrote that if God came personally into this world, we would rise up and kill Him. (Maybe Psi or someone else can help here...) Christian doctrine says that is exactly what happened.
Rich G.
So far, no materialist has offered any thoughts beyond simply saying that this is an unknowable mystery. Is that supposed to be superior to belief in a Creator?
Both positions are unknowable. And leaving it as a mystery does not satisfy either camp. All of us will always wonder at the purpose of it all and make up stories. In your case, you have chosen a position that is hard to defend, simply because if there is a creator, then you have to describe that creator. Theologians have spent millions of hours on the topic, simply because the character and intents of God are, from my perspective, impossible pursuits. It is my belief that the data fits better without God -- especially when asking the big "why" questions.
Rich,
Wasn't Cain before the Levitical laws? Genesis 4:5 seems to indicate God didn't like Cain's offering. Where does it mention his attitude? What about Abraham and Isaac? Do a search for "sacrifice" at BibleGateway.com and see that the word appears 357 times. Look at a few of the entries. It seems it was common practice for God to accept sacrifices. There are 728 entries for "offering".
My point is/was that God interfaced with humans through their fleeting practice of sacrifice. WHY? (This why question is probably best left for a future post, but is an example of what I mean by the stories upon stories that theologians have been grappling with for centuries trying to piece together the character and intents of God).
Hi, Tom:
Wasn't Cain before the Levitical laws? Genesis 4:5 seems to indicate God didn't like Cain's offering.
True. But there is no explicit statement about *why*.
Where does it mention his attitude? What about Abraham and Isaac? Do a search for "sacrifice" at BibleGateway.com and see that the word appears 357 times. Look at a few of the entries. It seems it was common practice for God to accept sacrifices. There are 728 entries for "offering".
I had already, but using my Strong's. I based my position on inferences about God's character. If He is eternally unchangeable, He has *always* been more interested in attitudes and motivations. Even in the OT, there are hints of this, such as David, who deserved to be executed (several times over), yet still found grace and acceptance - but at a price.
My point is/was that God interfaced with humans through their fleeting practice of sacrifice. WHY? (This why question is probably best left for a future post, but is an example of what I mean by the stories upon stories that theologians have been grappling with for centuries trying to piece together the character and intents of God).
Granted, but the practice wasn't all that fleeting, nor was it localized. There has been *something* buried deep in the human psyche worldwide that made there be a desire for sacrifices to the gods. This is only one feature of the human race that makes us so different from all other creatures on the face of this planet. From an evolutionary perspective, the physical similarities can be easily explained. So can some of the intellectual. But there are psychological differences that have *NO* analogues with any other creature, even in the most rudimentary form.
It's not just the priests and theologians that try to describe God. There are also the "stories upon stories" preserved by the common people through fables, legends and traditions. These are often dismissed by the learned because they are so common and unsophisticated.
Rich G. > Cliff can answer for his impression, but here is the false caricature I see...
As you've given an answer to a different question than the one I asked, perhaps you also failed to grasp McCabe's meaning.
Let's hope that Cliff does make clear how his statements differ from what McCabe's caricature.
Cliff > So far, no materialist has offered any thoughts beyond simply saying that this is an unknowable mystery. Is that supposed to be superior to belief in a Creator?
Are you asking whether acknowledgement of "an unknowable mystery" is "supposed to be superior to belief in" an unknowable mystery?
Or do you now say you know what God is - so there is no mystery.
Isaac,
This thread has gotten a bit unwieldy, and I am not sure that I understand some of your questions. You ask if I intended a statement about “a purposeful, highly intelligent Being” creating the universe to be a caricature. A caricature, as I use the term, involves an exaggeration of characteristics, or an absurd portrayal of a person or thing with an intent to ridicule, or to parody. I don’t see how my statement could qualify, but I assure you that no caricature was intended.
I presume that McCabe’s description of God is an intended caricature, particularly when he writes ”that there is a Top Person in the universe who issues arbitrary decrees for the rest of the persons and enforces them because he is the most powerful being around.” If this is the “person” atheists deny exists, I hope they are right! I presume this is McCabe’s point. Perhaps he is also suggesting that atheists do not deny the possibility of a Creator/higher Being; they just deny that anything like a Christian description can be known about such a Being if he exists.
Much of this discussion has skirted what is for me an important consideration. Christians, like myself, do not start with the mystery of why there is something instead of nothing. Our belief in God is based upon the claims of Jesus Christ, and many personal and corporate experiences of God. We have accepted the challenge of the Psalmist: “Taste and see that the Lord is good.” We have tasted. We have seen. What we believe about his character and purpose we have gleaned from these collective experiences, and the claims and teachings of Jesus. Having settled these question in our minds, we have a solution to the question of the origin of things before that question is even raised. IOW, our starting point is not the mystery of the universe. Our starting point is Jesus, and the God we believe he came to represent.
So, when Isaac asks, Are you asking whether acknowledgement of "an unknowable mystery" is "supposed to be superior to belief in" an unknowable mystery? I answer “no”. I believe God is, to some extent at least, knowable. This is the point Jesus makes again and again in the gospel of John.
Hi Rich,
re you uncertainty comment.;
exactly to opposite if you think about it.
What has the level of uncertainty got to do with veracity?
Hi Cliff,
didn't you realise that Paley was comprehensively demolished by that English chap, looks like James Randi, Charlie something or other.
The other knock down for Paley, with both evolutionary hands metphorically tied behind my back is the simple fact that Paley hides some not so subtle assumptions. I.e.
We know that people make watches. We can see them do it. My watch says CITIZENS Watch Co on the back of it.
Watches don't reproduce with hereditary and variation.
I realise that the argument from design is the biggest conversion tool for religions (ignoring child indoctrination) but it fails miserably on many levels as a rational. argument.
Can we stick to debating points that weren't conceded more than a century ago?
Regards
psi
Psi,
I am aware of the arguments against Paley, particularly the way Paley is used by many Creationists. That is why I said, "On one level his argument makes sense." I agree that watches are qualitatively different from living organisms, and that Paley's watch metaphor breaks down at many points. Analogies are rarely perfect. But when I consider the cosmos on larger scale, when I consider the principles of an extremely complex DNA language that drives biological evolution, when I consider "why there is something instead of nothing", my mind goes back to the very simple logic of the watch in the grass. Obviously, you reject the analogy in toto. But I have never conceded the argument from design. While it yields no conclusive proof, it is a reasonable argument when set against any alternative.
Lots of King David/Psalmist quotes now. I especially like Governor Mark Sanford comparing himself to King David. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/sanford_king_david_didnt_resign_so_i_wont_either.php?ref=fpblg
Rich said: "Even in the OT, there are hints of this, such as David, who deserved to be executed (several times over), yet still found grace and acceptance - but at a price." Like God killing David's bastard son for his father's sin (2 Samuel 11, 12).
Rich, where do statements like "These [stories upon stories] are often dismissed by the learned because they are so common and unsophisticated." come from? Even though many "learned" people may not subscribe to an idea, ideas are what makes us truly human. To understand humanity, one has to understand history and culture, even though someone may not condone that history or practice that culture itself.
Hi, Psi!
I wrote: But there is more room for uncertainty in the "I believe there is..." than in the "I know there is not..."
To which you answered:
exactly to opposite if you think about it.
I'm talking about room for a degree of fallibility. In common usage, "I believe" leaves room whereas "I know" is used to remove all doubt. I stand by what I wrote.
What has the level of uncertainty got to do with veracity?
It has to do with the vanity of the one making an assertion about what is ultimately unprovable. As Tom also wrote "Both positions are unknowable." I can accept this statement more readily than the arrogant "I know" when applied to the infinite.
"I can accept..."
"I can believe..."
"I can be convinced..."
are far more human statements than
"I know..."
when applied to these topics, for it requires an authority that, to me, seems presumptuous.
Rich G.
Tom:
Unlike Gov. Sanford, I wouldn't want to presume to "be like King David" on my own. That sounds arrogant when appropriated on his own volition.
I do not understand the death of David's illegitimate son - he had done nothing. But David paid further in his dysfunctional family (one son committing incest, another son committing fratricide, etc.) than just that.
Rich G.
Isaac:
"Very frequently the man who sees himself as an atheist..."
p7, God Matters, Herbert McCabe
You never answered my question. I'll rephrase it.
Are you using his words because they reflect your position?
Rich said: I do not understand the death of David's illegitimate son.
And that's the type of thing that I'm talking about. When you accept that there is a God with intentions, who finds favor with one thing and dislikes another, and that all of this is in some sense part of a master plan or design, eventually, you'll get dizzy and frustrated trying to piece together a cohesive image of God.
Hi Rich,
You make a good point.
If you had made it to someone who was actually making a claim of knowledge, as you say, then it might even be an excellent one.
As it is I was pointing out something which we don't know.
See the difference?
Regards,
psi
Tom,
... eventually, you'll get dizzy and frustrated trying to piece together a cohesive image of God.
I don't get dizzy and frustrated. Not at all! The quest for God is the most satisfying, fulfilling aspect of my life. I do believe we are obliged to use our minds in this process. I do, and I love it. Do I agree with centuries of philosophizing theologians? Of course not. For one thing, we know so much more today about the nature of God's (assuming for the moment!) creative work, which in turn give us all kinds of clues as to his character and his M.O.
If you will review my views on general revelation and progressive revelation, you will see why I am not bound to defend the O.T. weirdness you are raising. Please keep this in mind: If an O.T. passage troubles you, or seems odd to you, it puzzles me and seems odd to me. Rather than making the kind of sweeping statements about God based on O.T. texts, you might ask Rich or myself how we deal with certain texts, how and why our understandings about God are different from Moses's or David's.
Hi, Tom!
And that's the type of thing that I'm talking about. When you accept that there is a God with intentions, who finds favor with one thing and dislikes another, and that all of this is in some sense part of a master plan or design, eventually, you'll get dizzy and frustrated trying to piece together a cohesive image of God.
Shoot, I can't even do that with ONE of my fellow human beings. Not even my cat.
cliff > I don’t see how my statement could qualify, but I assure you that no caricature was intended.
Do you see similarity between your words "A purposeful, highly intelligent Being created our universe..." and those of the "religious people" who "...claim to have discovered what the answer is, that there is some grand architect of the universe who designed it..."?
What do you see as the overwhelming difference between those statements?
Isaac,
I don't see an overwhelming difference between those two statements. Am I suppose to? I never said that the entire McCabe quote was caricature; I have specifically cited the portion that I believe is caricature, and it is overwhelmingly different from anything I have ever said, written, or thought about God.
Cliff > I don't see an overwhelming difference between those two statements... I have specifically cited the portion that I believe is caricature...
The specific portion you say is caricature isn't separate from the portion you do not recognize as caricature - it's all one piece.
As you've agreed there really isn't difference between what you've said - "A purposeful, highly intelligent Being created our universe..." - and the claim - "there is some grand architect of the universe who designed it..." - the claim which McCabe "and Thomas Aquinas and a whole Christian tradition" would deny.
It's a little strange that you don't seem to recognize what you've said is the claim they would deny.
Isaac,
... and it seems strange to me that you are pressing this point so fervently.
No, I do not recognize that what I’ve written is the claim Aquinas would deny. I do not know the basis of McCabe’s claim about what Aquinas would affirm or deny.
I would not affirm that “there is some grand architect of the universe who designed it.” I did not consider the nuance of difference between that statement and the one I made ... so excuse me for saying that I do not see an overwhelming difference. There is a subtle difference, I think you would agree. My most recent post should make it clear that I do not see God as engineering the details of the universe, and Aquinas would likely agree with that.
I would further contend that Aquinas would affirm my statement. He would agree that God is purposeful, intelligent, and that he created the universe.
If you actually do not see the subtle difference between those two statements, let me know. I will try to make it more clear.
Without studying Aquinas’ views on origins, my guess is that we would be on the same page.
Cliff > If you actually do not see the subtle difference between those two statements, let me know. I will try to make it more clear.
Please state and explain the subtle difference you allude to.
Isaac,
The difference between merely claiming that God created the universe (do you know any theists who would deny that?) and that God designed every detail of the universe (“just like Basil Spence” would design a building) are obvious to me. Please read my most recent post (posted earlier today) if you still don't understand the difference. But the main point is this: what exactly in the McCabe quote would Aquinas “and a whole Christian tradition” deny?
I’m not going to continue playing this word game with you. But if you would please, find any evidence that Aquinas would have denied that God created the universe. Then we can have a real discussion about substance instead of a petty squabble about semantics.
Cliff > a petty squabble about semantics
Do you really think what you mean by the word God is a petty squabble about semantics?
Cliff > The difference between merely claiming that God created the universe ... and that God designed every detail of the universe...
The "obvious" difference you point to seems to be the difference between making with laws that unfold and making each detail one by one - is that the difference you wish to point out?
Isaac,
Do you really think what you mean by the word God is a petty squabble about semantics?
No. I do not recall any discussion of the definition of God. The petty squabble about semantics is your insistence that a belief that God created the universe = a belief that God designed every detail as an architect would design a building. I believe the former, not the latter. That you seem to be unable to see the difference is a semantic problem.
The "obvious" difference you point to seems to be the difference between making with laws that unfold and making each detail one by one - is that the difference you wish to point out?
Ahh! now your getting it. But still, I will not let you put the words in my mouth. You no doubt are setting another trap. I’ll stand by the words I wrote in the last comment.
How are you coming on you search for what exactly Aquinas would deny in the McCabe quote?
Cliff > You no doubt are setting another trap.
How can there be any kind of "trap" when you are free to say and believe whatever you wish to say and believe?
If you (as we all do) occasionally misspeak then simply correct what you've said!
Cliff > I do not recall any discussion of the definition of God.
The would be answer to the question "Why is there anything instead of nothing?" is one definition.
Cliff > I’ll stand by the words I wrote in the last comment.
And obviously that clarifies nothing.
You suggested I read your latest post, which seems to be about making things in the universe.
As far as that McCabe and "a whole Christian tradition" are concerned there's "a great gap between creation and making or causing in our familiar sense".
Perhaps you follow a different Christian tradition - it's difficult to tell when you won't clarify what you've said.
Isaac,
Actually, the tactic you have used on this site again and again is 1) you put words in my mouth, and then 2) you attempt to trap me in some contradiction or misstatement. It is always about semantics, seldom about substance. In this case, you are trying your hardest to say that since I affirm a Creator/God this somehow puts me out of the mainstream of Christianity, and at odds with Aquinas. Such a claim is utterly unfounded. To turn the discussion toward substance, I have asked you to find any claim by Aquinas that is contrary to what I have affirmed: that God created the universe.
As for the McCabe quote, he intentionally went beyond what Aquinas and I and thousands of other affirm. He made God out to be a micro-managing detail designing God. McCabe, Aquinas, thousands of other Christians and I all deny such a God.
What could be more simple than that?
Isaac,
If you have read my most recent Post, then you know that I affirm a Creator God who did not detail design as would an architect or engineer, but left his Creation to random influences.
Cliff > you attempt to trap me in some contradiction or misstatement
I've said explicitly and repeatedly - if you make a misstatement simply correct what you've said!
I don't care if you make misstatements, just that you make clear which statements we should regard as misstatements and ignore.
Errare humanum est.
Cliff > In this case, you are trying your hardest to say...
And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth?
In this case, I'm trying my hardest to find out what you mean by "created" and "creation" - as I said, the latest post you pointed me to seems to be about making things in the universe which obviously leads me to ask whether that's what you mean by creation?
Cliff > out of the mainstream of Christianity
From my perspective there seem to be many different "mainstream[s] of Christianity". I have no interest in claiming any of them is the mainstream - I don't have a horse in that race.
Cliff > but left his Creation to random influences
And once again I ask what do you mean by "Creation" because it seems like the distinction you are drawing is between "making with laws that unfold and making each detail one by one" - and that is different to the distinction the Thomists draw "between creation and making or causing in our familiar sense".
Post a Comment