 |
| Goya: The Third of May, 1808 |
In our last blogpost we asked the question "What is 'salvation'?," and noted that the word refers to deliverance from the wrath of God. But why is God angry? To answer that question we must consider the problem of evil.
What we see in life are people pushing and shoving and hurting each other in various ways. Businessmen are greedy. Politicians are self-serving and deceitful. Marriages end in divorce. The world is in constant turmoil with tyranny, war and oppression everywhere.
But there is something inside of us that tells us that this cannot be right. We cannot accept the idea that we should simply accept things the way they are. We long for some sense of justice.
But what makes one action "right" and another "wrong"? On what basis can we judge another? Who can say, objectively, who is right and who is wrong? Secular thinkers, from Socrates on down to the present, have struggled to answer the question, and have not found a satisfactory answer. The best that most modern (or perhaps we should say "post-modern") philosophers can say is that morality is a human invention. Either we so evolved that we developed a moral sense, so that we think that there is a difference between right and wrong, or else that morality is the result of some sort of social contract. We must somehow get along with each other, and so we enter into a tacit agreement with each other as to what we will tolerate and what we will not.
Thus we are faced with a conflict between the "real" and the "ideal." It has been said that most people are followers either of Plato or of Aristotle. Plato was the quintessential "idealist." Truth is a matter of abstract ideals, and the physical world is merely an imperfect copy of the ideal world. Aristotle, on the other hand, was the archetypical "realist": he was concerned with the physical world as it actually exists. But there are not many true idealists around today. In our modern, science-based culture we are too preoccupied with the here-and-now to worry much about abstract principles or ideals. In its more extreme form this way of thinking is frankly atheistic But the implications of this outlook are stark. It means that there is no real meaning or purpose in life, no real difference between right and wrong, no final justice, no life beyond the grave. Unfortunately for us the party will eventually end and the lights will go out.
The biblical answer to all of this is that our intuitions are largely correct. There is a real design in nature, there is meaning and purpose to life, and there is a real difference between right and wrong. The reason is that the universe was created by an Intelligent Being. Everything, when created, was originally "good." We revolted, however, against our Creator, and everything was corrupted as a result. This is why the present reality does not conform to God's ideal standard. This is the reason for God's wrath, and thus the need for salvation.
Related posts:
The Case for Moral Absolutes
Alasdair MacIntyre: A Study in Moral Theory
What Makes Christianity Different?
What God Thinks of Us
In our last blogpost we asked the question "What is 'salvation'?," and noted that the word refers to deliverance from the wrath of God. But why is God angry? To answer that question we must consider the problem of evil.
ReplyDeleteWhy is Hank angry?
But what makes one action "right" and another "wrong"? On what basis can we judge another?
Well, what does the Koran say?
Who can say, objectively, who is right and who is wrong?
Santa? He has that list of whose naughty or nice.
Secular thinkers, from Socrates on down to the present, have struggled to answer the question, and have not found a satisfactory answer.
Secular thinkers? Really? Only secular thinkers?
How about religious thinkers?
How about...(gasp)...Hindus or Bhuddists or any number of religions other than your own personal brand? Are you such a provincial that you can't even bring yourself to recognise other religions out there (past and present) apart from your own?
But our conscience tells us that there has to be something more to morality than ingrained behavior or social pressure. We somehow sense that certain actions are intrinsically wrong, and that in an ideal world wrong would be punished and good rewarded. But how?
Orisis will weigh your heart just like it says in the Book of the Dead?
In our modern, science-based culture we are too preoccupied with the here-and-now to worry much about abstract principles or ideals. In its more extreme form this way of thinking is frankly atheistic.
Strawman. What atheists can you quote that don't get principles or ideals? You might not agree with those ideals but most people do have them in one from or another no matter if they believe in a a gigantic fairy in the sky or not.
It's just the way people tick.
Unfortunately for us the party will eventually end and the lights will go out.
The biblical answer to all of this is that our intuitions are largely correct.
The Bible? Why is that your first port of call?
Habit. That's why.
It's geographically specific to you.
If you were born in a Muslim country, you could preach the same platitudes. Only the brand-name would be different.
Rejecting science does not make your brand name win by default. False dichotomy, remember?
Some of your questions may have been answered in the subsequent blogpost. For the ways in which such secular thinkers such as John Dewey, Alasdair MacIntyre, Jerry Coyne and Sam Harris have tried to answer the question, you might want to click on some of the links at the end of the 1/4/13 post.
ReplyDeleteTo see just how problematical "ideals" can be in an evolutionary framework take a look at "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy," by Dewey, in The Philosophy of John Dewey, John J. McDermott, ed., (University of Chicago Press,1981).
For the ways in which such secular thinkers such as John...
ReplyDeleteThat does not address my point. It's not just secular thinkers vs your brand-name thinkers.
To see just how problematical "ideals" can be in an evolutionary framework...
False dichotomy. How can I get you to understand this?
...take a look at "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy," by Dewey...
I don't have a copy handy and even if I did, I am short on time. Now what?
(shrug)
I guess both Dewey and myself are having a hard time understanding the "false dichotomy."
ReplyDeleteIn his essay Dewey points out that for 2,000 years, under the influence of Greek philosophy, western philosophers and scientists thought in terms of fixed categories called "species." Each species has its own "telos," or specific purpose and aim. This kind of intellectual framework fits easily into Christianity by arguing that the "ideals" or "essences" originate as ideas in the mind of the Creator and then are expressed in the creation.
The theory of evolution, however, undermines all of this. Not only is reality the result of an unguided natural process, so that there no specific "telos'" end or purpose to anything, but everything is in a constant state of change and transition, so that there are no fixed categories. Strictly speaking one cannot speak of a species such as "Homo sapiens," because that is just a shorthand way for scientists to describe a group of organisms that happen to bear a superficial resemblance to each other. In reality (Darwin would have us to believe), these organisms are all evolving into something else, and something different from each other. You can see how this could easily be used to justify racism, eugenics, and Social Darwinism.
But it also throws the whole idea of morality, as an objective standard of conduct, into doubt. Who sets the rules? No one, it turns out. The same goes for justice and human rights. They are all artificial products of the human imagination and are just as subject to change as women's fashions. Therein lies the problem.
So yes, I guess Dewey and I just don't get it.
The theory of evolution, however, undermines all of this.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the theory of Gravity? That "undermines" Christianity in the same way. Unguided natural process is a good way to describe it.
(shrug)
In reality (Darwin would have us to believe), these organisms are all evolving into something else, and something different from each other. You can see how this could easily be used to justify racism, eugenics, and Social Darwinism.
1) No, I can't.
2) No, it doesn't.
If you want to talk about the theory of Evolution, then do so.
If you want to embrace a strawman then be honest about it.
Ninth Commandment and all that.
Who sets the rules? No one, it turns out. The same goes for justice and human rights. They are all artificial products of the human imagination and are just as subject to change as women's fashions. Therein lies the problem.
You have yet to explain what the problem is. Also, you have yet to justify your solution by attributing powers to some magical invisible man in the sky. And not just any invisible magical man in the sky.
Oh no, it's your geographically specific invisible man in the sky.
You are ignoring all the others.
False Dichotomy. It's not an either/or choice.
The biblical answer to all of this is that our intuitions are largely correct.
ReplyDeleteNot surprising really, when you consider that it's writing was largely based upon those intuitions, rather than a sober assessment of reality.
But just like the our intuitions that the earth is flat, or doesn't move, or is the centre of the universe, or that humans are separate from the other animals (all also supported in the Christian bible), this one also doesn't seem to bear out under scrutiny :-)
You might enjoy "Galileo's Ordeal" (6/19/12) along with several blog posts I published in June dealing with science and religion.
ReplyDeleteSuffice it to say here, conservative Christianity doesn't ignore the scientific evidence where such evidence is available, but it doesn't accept blindly unverifiable hypotheses (such as evolution) either.
The intuitive knowledge I had in mind mostly involves things that cannot be discerned through sense perception, such as morality and the immortality of the soul. We instinctively feel that the Newtown school shooting was evil. Why? Is that irrational on our part?
Suffice it to say here, conservative Christianity doesn't ignore the scientific evidence where such evidence is available, but...
DeleteWait for it. Here it comes...
... but it doesn't accept blindly unverifiable hypotheses (such as evolution) either.
Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory? They are not the same.
Get your science information from the actual scientific community as opposed to Jack Chick tracts or something.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
The intuitive knowledge I had in mind mostly involves things that cannot be discerned through sense perception, such as morality and the immortality of the soul.
Apples and oranges. Morals exist. They can be observed in other people. Souls, Chi and spirits? Not so much.
We instinctively feel that the Newtown school shooting was evil. Why?
It's a good question. Don't ruin it by settling for a magical, made-up answer.
Bob: Suffice it to say here, conservative Christianity doesn't ignore the scientific evidence where such evidence is available,
DeleteOf course it does, as you demonstrate in the very next sentence. Christianity has a long history of resisting anything which goes against accepted dogma.
Also, you might try presenting links to previous posts instead of just giving the title - makes things easier for us lazy folk :-)
Bob: but it doesn't accept blindly unverifiable hypotheses (such as evolution) either.
As Cedric pointed out, evolution isn't a hypothesis.
Evolution as a whole, as well as the hypotheses that underlie evolutionary claims are indeed both verifiable and have been verified extensively.
Also, you have almost certainly accepted numerous unverifiable hypotheses - theistic belief in an omnipotent being is one huge unverified, unverifiable and unfalsifiable mass. To be consistent, shouldn't you reject Christianity and theism as well? :-)
Bob: The intuitive knowledge I had in mind mostly involves things that cannot be discerned through sense perception,
This is mistaken. "Sense Perception" doesn't seem to be limited to external stimuli - we sense and perceive our own thoughts, beliefs, desires and...intuitions.
Bob: such as morality and the immortality of the soul.
I'll grant you that many people feel morality in an intuitive fashion, but just like my intuition that the earth doesn't move, such intuitions shouldn't then be treated as knowledge without further reasons.
Immortality of the soul, while perhaps grasped intuitively by some, is not remotely universal, and again, needs some sort of further justification.
Bob: We instinctively feel that the Newtown school shooting was evil. Why? Is that irrational on our part?
Your feelings don't necessarily equate to reality Bob. Yes, we feel that the Newtown incident was a tragic loss of life, that murder is bad or wrong (though this is not nearly universal), etc. But we also have good reasons to accept this intuition as knowledge, and such reasons do not need to invoke a god or gods.
As Cedric notes, you invoke god as an explanation for morality without bothering to provide independent evidence for the existence of this being - you've settled for an unverified hypothesis, something you claimed conservative Christians did not do.
And how exactly can you verify evolution? One of the problems inherent in historical geology and historical biology is that you cannot observe the phenomena directly and you can not test the hypothesis under controlled circumstances in a laboratory. In other words, there is no means of falsifying the hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteI know that evolutionists at this point will say that the theory is verified when subsequent discoveries are consistent with it -- that the theory has predictive value. In the case of evolution I am not sure that this is entirely true -- what you find in the fossil record are definable species that suddenly appear and disappear, sometimes with huge gaps in the record. But more to the point, if the theory purports to be a comprehensive explanation of a set of phenomena, and the new evidence is of the same kind as the old, does the new evidence confirm the theory or are we simply using the theory to interpret the evidence?
When I use the term "sense perception'" I mean evidence obtained through the physical senses,i.e., empiricism, and therefore by its very nature is limited to physical reality.
My point is that ultimately our knowledge of reality is a kind of three-legged stool. It depends on sensory perception, intuition, and written revelation. It is the confluence of the three that provides us with a basis for knowledge.
Sorry about the absence of links. I will try to post some below.
Bob: And how exactly can you verify evolution?
DeleteThe theory of evolution predicts specific empirical observations.
You go out and see if those observations hold or not.
Bob: One of the problems inherent in historical geology and historical biology is that you cannot observe the phenomena directly and you can not test the hypothesis under controlled circumstances in a laboratory. In other words, there is no means of falsifying the hypothesis.
This is siply rubbish Bob.
We can observe mutations, we can observe selection - we know those operate, and can produce novel functions.
We can observe fossils, we can observe modern (and some quite a bit older) genomes and compare them - we have good reason to accept common descent.
You seem to have a VERY constrained idea of falsification actually consists of.
Bob: I know that evolutionists at this point will say that the theory is verified when subsequent discoveries are consistent with it -- that the theory has predictive value. In the case of evolution I am not sure that this is entirely true -- what you find in the fossil record are definable species that suddenly appear and disappear, sometimes with huge gaps in the record.
Species don't "suddenly appear" without any sort of precursor look at the fossil lineages for whales, horses, humans, etc.
Bob: But more to the point, if the theory purports to be a comprehensive explanation of a set of phenomena, and the new evidence is of the same kind as the old, does the new evidence confirm the theory or are we simply using the theory to interpret the evidence?
If we see the same empirical observations occuring, then it adds weight to the theory. If the predictions hold out under observation, then that adds weight to the theory. If attempts to falisfy hypothesis within the umbrella of the theory aren't successful, then this adds weight to the theory.
Bob: My point is that ultimately our knowledge of reality is a kind of three-legged stool. It depends on sensory perception, intuition, and written revelation. It is the confluence of the three that provides us with a basis for knowledge.
You seem to be conflating the contexts of discovery and of justification.
How you come up with a claim is unimportant - it could be some intuition you had, or some insight from you preferred holy book, or whatever.
What is more important is how you justify this claim - you can't just point to your source of inspiration and say "Now we know it's true!" - your claim needs to be tested, needs to have some sort of impact within the world such that we could know whether the claim is true or not.
And this is a serious problem for hypothesis which posit a supernatural component - they can be used to explain EVERY conceivable empirical observation (and it's converse). Theistic hypothesis tend not to provide sufficient contraints to allow any sort of testing to be carried out. And so we can never know whether they're true or false - they're simply useless as explanations.
This is why a theory that explains everything explains nothing - and the Christian concept of God explains everything.
And how exactly can you verify evolution?
DeleteScientists claim that they can verify evolution.
It happens all the time.
It's not exactly a secret.
One of the problems inherent in historical geology and historical biology is that you cannot observe the phenomena directly...
Not according to the scientific community.
Read up on it.
Put down the Jack Chick tracts and get thee hence to a biology text book.
...and you can not test the hypothesis...
Why do you call it a hypothesis when scientists call it a theory?
Don't you see that if you could demonstrate that the theory of evolution is not really a theory that you'd be a shoo-in for a Nobel Prize?
I know that evolutionists...
No Bob.
Not "evolutionists".
Scientists.
The entire scientific community.
...at this point will say that the theory is verified when subsequent discoveries are consistent with it -- that the theory has predictive value. In the case of evolution I am not sure that this is entirely true...
Bob, either it's true or it's not.
This is something that you can find out for certain.
Those scientists?
They work for a living doing exactly this kind of thing.
They publish. They discover stuff. They make stuff.
All because the theory of evolution really is a theory and really, truly, deeply, madly has predictive power...otherwise...um...it wouldn't be a...y'know...a theory and all.
But ordinarily for a fossil to be formed the organism must be buried quickly in water. Thus the large fossil graveyards, plus the huge coal and oil deposits, all point to a geological catastrophe...
No, they don't.
We've been through this. I explained this to you very carefully. Why are you doing this "LALALALALALALA, I can't hear you" routine? It's unseemly.
My point is that ultimately our knowledge of reality is a kind of three-legged stool.
Ah, stools. Funny you should mention that.
I wasn't able to add links directly to this post, but there are several above and the mores recent post with the same title. I also redid the sidebar so that I now have a list of direct links to several key articles. I hope they provoke thought and discussion!
ReplyDeleteTo add links you need to use an HTML anchor tag
Deleteelse you can paste the URL in directly, and while it will show up as plain text, it can be copied and pasted into a browser.
A lot of species suddenly appeared without any precursors -- during the "Cambrian Explosion."
ReplyDeleteThis is not correct Bob.
DeleteA lot of species which had skeletons or other hard parts first appeared during the Cambrian Explosion, but it there have been some fossils of soft bodies organisms prior to that time which preceded them.
Also, the Cambrian Explosion covers a period of some 50 million years or more. Since we have evidence that whales evolved from quadruped land animals over around 48 million years, I think we can safely discard any general worries surrounding the Cambrian Explosion.
Do you have any actual specific complaints?
Gosh, the Cambrian Explosion.
DeleteAgain.
(...facepalm...)
Basically my position is that while the earth may be old, the fossils are not. The standard dating of the geological column is based on Uniformitarianism. But ordinarily for a fossil to be formed the organism must be buried quickly in water. Thus the large fossil graveyards, plus the huge coal and oil deposits, all point to a geological catastrophe, and that may mean that the Cambrian Explosion may not have lasted for 50 million years – it may represent the largely aquatic life that existed on the sea floor at the beginning of the catastrophe.
ReplyDeleteFor a further discussion you can take a look at an article I wrote entitled “The Age of the Earth,” which appeared in three installments:
bereanobserver.blogspot.com/2012/06/age-of-earth-i.html
bereanobserver.blogspot.com/2012/06/age-of-earth-ii.html
bereanobserver.blogspot.com/2012/06/age-of-earth-iii.html
Bob: Basically my position is that while the earth may be old, the fossils are not.
DeleteWhich is a nonsensical position, since the same evidence that indicates that the earth is old also indicates that the fossils are as well.
Bob: The standard dating of the geological column is based on Uniformitarianism.
Which is a working assumption that doesn't have any reasonable evidence against it.
What reasons are there to assume things like radioactive decay was faster in the past, as is required for fossils to be young?
To assume this simply to try to comport the evidence with your holy book is ad-hoc, and denies atomic theory, quantum physics (which atomic theory reduces to).
Bob: Thus the large fossil graveyards, plus the huge coal and oil deposits, all point to a geological catastrophe,
Not to a single one, since these sorts of things date to different periods.
Why assume a single event when independent evidence indicates multiple events?
Bob: and that may mean that the Cambrian Explosion may not have lasted for 50 million years – it may represent the largely aquatic life that existed on the sea floor at the beginning of the catastrophe.
Except of course you run afoul of atomic theory and quantum mechanics here, and for ad-hoc reasons.
Bob: For a further discussion you can take a look at an article I wrote entitled “The Age of the Earth,” which appeared in three installments:
I'll try to get to read and comment on those stories. Should I expect similar amounts of ad-hoc rationalisation in that article as you're displaying here?