 |
| Frans Hals, Young Man with a Skull |
You will recall that we were discussing the chapter "Dear Theologian" in your book, the chapter that was written as though it were a letter from God addressed to theologians. In the first section of your "letter" you had raised certain objections to the argument from design, which we attempted to answer in our last blog post. In the next section, which we consider today, you went on to discuss the meaning and purpose of life. The thread of your argument was a little hard to follow, consisting as it did of one objection after another, but if we understand you correctly, the point you were trying to make is this: if human beings find meaning and purpose in life by submitting to the will of God, then how does God find meaning and purpose? Conversely, if God can exist happily without being created or submitting to someone else's will, then why cannot humans?
We would begin by pointing out the obvious difficulty with this line of argument: it basically puts you, a finite human being, in the position of pcychoanalyzing the Deity, not that theologians haven't tried to do it themselves from time to time. Because God is infinite and eternal, all-knowing and all-wise, there are some things about Him that we can never hope to understand, and, frankly, some things that are just plain none of our business. For the most part what we know about God, about how He thinks and why He does certain things, is based solely on revelation; we only know what He Himself is pleased to tell us. Beyond that we must maintain a respectful silence, and not pretend to know more that we do.
What the Bible does tell us, however, is that God is actively involved with His creation. In fact, in one sense the whole biblical narrative is the record how God has acted in human history. You are familiar, no doubt, with the doctrine of divine providence, as well as the plan of redemption. At one point in your argument you picture God as saying "I created the universe from quarks to galactic clusters, and it runs okay on its own . . . there is nothing in the universe for Me to do. It's boring up here" (p. 149). Yet that is not the way God would have put it. What the Bible actually says is that universe does not "run okay on its own." "By him all things consist" (Col. 1:17), and He is "upholding all things by the word of his power" (Heb. 1:3). "For in him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28). While He may ordinarily use natural causes to govern His creation, that does not preclude the fact that He is the ultimate, controlling cause. Moreover, He indwells believers by His Spirit, hears and answers their prayers, and guides and protects them through life.
You then raise some questions about the nature of God's love, and wonder how He can be omnipotent, and a God of love, and yet consign billions to hell. This, as you well know, is the classic problem of "theodicy," the justice of God in the permission of evil, and it is one of the most impenetrable mysteries of theology.
However, if you think that there is some sort of contradiction here, consider this: what occasioned the paradox or anomaly is our own irrational, abusive and self-destructive behavior. Before we ask, "why did God permit sin?," we should first as the question, why do we commit it? After all, we have no one to blame for our predicament but ourselves. God did not force us to sin – we do it voluntarily.
As for eternal punishment, let us ask ourselves these questions: Does God love human beings? Then how should He react when to those who harm are injure others, the people whom He loves? With benign indifference? If God is at all just, He must punish and destroy evil. He could have simply consigned the entire human race to hell and that would have been the end of it. But instead He chose to do something else: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, so that whoso believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." I know that this is a verse that you yourself have quoted many times in the past. But it means that God can both forgive sin and punish it at the same time. Is there a contradiction here in His character?
You point out that any love that is motivated by fear of hell is no love at all, and you are quite correct in this. But you surely have heard of the new birth and how it changes a person's heart. The regenerate person is given a new heart so that he loves God freely and spontaneously. He loves God because of what Christ did for him. It is love responding to love. There is nothing forced or coerced about it.
We also note that in the next section of your "letter" you objected to the idea of a substitutionary atonement. People should have to pay for their own sins, you say. First you complain that God is unloving because He sends sinners to hell; then you complain that He is unjust because He provided a substitute to take our penalty for us. Your suggested alternative is that God is just a made-up concept, which leaves us with neither justice nor redemption. You will forgive us if we appear to be less than enthused with the prospect.
You may certainly pay for your own sins if you so desire; that is your prerogative. But as for us, we would rather avail ourselves of the grace and mercy freely offered us. Amazing grace, how sweet the sound!
We would begin by pointing out the obvious difficulty with this line of argument: it basically puts you, a finite human being, in the position of pcychoanalyzing the Deity, not that theologians haven't tried to do it themselves from time to time. Because God is infinite and eternal, all-knowing and all-wise, there are some things about Him that we can never hope to understand, and, frankly, some things that are just plain none of our business.
ReplyDeleteAh, the ultimate escape hatch. Massive.
Here's Carl Sagan's story of his dragon:
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage.
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
'Show me,' you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle - but no dragon.
'Where's the dragon?' you ask.
'Oh, she's right here,' I reply, waving vaguely.
'I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon.'
Escape hatch
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
'Good idea,' I say, 'but this dragon floats in the air.'
Escape hatch
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
'Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.'
And another
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
'Good idea, except she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick.'
Yet another
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?
If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true.
Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there is a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me."
Link
I never said there was no evidence for the existence of God -- far from it! The rational order that obviously exists in nature points to an intelligent Designer, our moral intuitions point to a moral law from divine lawgiver, and Scripture contains the combined testimony of numerous prophets and apostles, some of them eyewitnesses to the events they described, including the resurrection of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteHowever, since God is infinite and we are not, there are some things that will forever remain a mystery to us. There is empirical evidence that there is a dragon in the garage. However, I am not about to go out and shake hands with him!
I never said there was no evidence for the existence of God -- far from it!
ReplyDeleteUm...ok. I'm not sure how that became part of the conversation though.
(shrug)
The rational order that obviously exists in nature points to an intelligent Designer...
This is a claim. It's not evidence for a claim.
"Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so."
"...our moral intuitions point to a moral law from divine lawgiver..."
This is a claim. It's not evidence for a claim.
"...and Scripture contains..."
Claims. That's what it contains.
"...some of them eyewitnesses..."
What you have is your particular holy book.
It's not an eyewitness.
Even if it was an eyewitness, it would count for very little.
However, since God is infinite and we are not, there are some things....
We're back to the escape hatch again.
It's an escape hatch that any religion can use.
The only reason why you are using it for your brandname is because of the geography where you were born.
Switch the labels around. It works nicely. That's a bad sign.
"Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us on in exciting our sense of wonder." You do realize that that statement applies equally well to the Theory of Evolution. The problem with historical geology and historical biology generally is that the phenomena cannot be observed directly and cannot be tested under controlled conditions. In other words, they cannot be falsified. The are, by the nature of the case, immune to disproof. This is true whether we are talking about Young Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, or Darwinism. Charles Darwin and Henry Morris can each advance a hypothesis that seems to explain the physical evidence available to us, but that is as far is it can go. Neither side can prove empirically what actually happened, and each must allow for the possibility that the real truth was something that hasn't occurred to either one of them.
ReplyDeleteSo why is evolution "science" and Intelligent Design "not science"?
You do realize that that statement applies equally well to the Theory of Evolution.
ReplyDeleteTwo things.
1) You are using a Tu Quoque argument. Shame on you.
2) This is the Internet, Bob. On the internet, a claim like "oh you can't test evolution" or " Hey, it's just like Intelligent Design creationism" is checkable via google. There's no point in breaking the Ninth Commandment. Especially not with me.
I factcheck, Bob.
I don't just meekly rely on you to spoonfeed me information. I google.
I google a lot.
It's easy.
Google is not your friend.
A scientific theory is by it's very nature...testable. Otherwise it would not qualify as a scientific theory. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory and has been for a long, long, LONG time.
This is something you can find out for yourself...on the Internet.
You can type in "scientific theory" to find out what the term means to a scientist. You can type "Theory of Evolution" to find out what it means too. You can even type in "experiments" and "tests" and (for good measure) "predictions" and how important they are to scientific theories. The Theory of Evolution is no exception.
3) That first bit about you using a Tu Quoque argument? It's important enough that it bears repeating. Shame on you.
The Theory of Evolution in 2 Minutes
So you would believe something just because it's on the Internet? Why not just visit the websites of the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis? Would that make their assertions facts?
ReplyDeleteWhat Jerry Coyne says about scientific theories is this: "For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be testable and make verifiable predictions." Now, one might wonder how you could possibly test a theory about what allegedly happened hundreds of millions of years ago, but Coyne explains: ". . .we must be able to make observations about the real world that either support it or disprove it." By this criterion Intelligent Design is a scientific theory. Its proponents can argue that it is supported by observations about the real world, and in fact, explains the real world better than does evolution.
So you would believe something just because it's on the Internet? Why not just visit the websites of the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis? Would that make their assertions facts?
ReplyDeleteWell, you could but that would be a mistake.
This may come as a shock to you but people lie. They create websites and they lie on those websites. They do so for many reasons. Some of those reasons are relgious reasons.
What's important is not the conclusions you want but the methodology you use.
You have your preconcieved notions. You seek to re-inforce those preconcieved notions. There are websites out there that are willing to tell you what you want to hear.
You need to adopt a rigorous methodology that will stop you from fooling yourself and subconsiously allow others to pick your pocket, intellectually speaking.
Peek behind the curtain and you will find out that it's rubbish. It's fraud.
Science is not some mysterious malevolent force. It's only the study of reality. Over the years, people have figured out ways to study reality. Those ways are used because they work. They are effective.
"For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be testable and make verifiable predictions." Now, one might wonder how you could possibly test a theory...
That would be easy enough. You can google it straight away.
There's no need to be lost in wonder about it.
We are not having this conversation down at the pub back in the 80's where we have to guess and painfully remember half-forgotten high school biology class.
We have the internet.
You can google it.
You can use multiple sources from scientific communities that do this kind of thing for a living. It's freely available.
...about what allegedly happened hundreds of millions of years ago...
No.
Not "millions of years ago". You have it wrong.
For goodness sake, find out what the Theory of Evolution means.
Google it.
Don't just come up with something that you heard from somewhere from someone and soaked it up backwards.
Google it.
You could even watch the video I gave you. Two minutes is all it takes.
If you are going to talk about atheism then you need to talk about atheism and represent it as fairly and as honestly as you would have a stranger represent your own.
The same principle goes for any other subject such as (you guessed it) the Theory of Evolution.
If you don't have a methodology, you are a helpless lamb waiting to be fleeced.
By this criterion Intelligent Design is a scientific theory. Its proponents can argue that it is supported by observations about the real world, and in fact, explains the real world better than does evolution.
Yet...they don't.
Stop and think for a moment before you type in a reply.
You know I always choose my words carefully.
Ask yourself why I reject your claim so casually and quickly.
I'm sure you can find some site or other that claims that they really do, in fact I know you can, but walk a mile in my shoes. See it from my perspective.
Can you fairly and reasonably represent my position and follow my methodology on how I assess this particular claims?
(I'm really hoping I did not waste my time with that last statement. You have this habit of blanking. Seriously, look at the way you do things and compare them side by side with the way I do things. No strawmen allowed.)
So you don't think that evolution occurred "millions of years ago"? This is a new one on me!
ReplyDeleteAs for your position and your methodology, all you have been willing to tell me about it is to
"Google it"! It sounds to me like an appeal to authority. Is that how you do science?
So you don't think that evolution occurred "millions of years ago"? This is a new one on me!
ReplyDeleteWhich is why I ask you to google it.
It's why I ask you to watch the 2 minute video.
Read a biology book.
You have it wrong.
Think! Why do you suppose I would say something like that?
As for your position and your methodology, all you have been willing to tell me about it is to...
Not true. Read what I have written on this occassion and many other occasions. Look at the video I provided in my previous post. It's painfully clear how I go about things. It' not something I just do myself or that I am following arbitrary rules plucked out of thin air.
"Google it"! It sounds to me like an appeal to authority.
We've covered this already.
Remember?
"Well, you could but that would be a mistake.
This may come as a shock to you but people lie. They create websites and they lie on those websites. They do so for many reasons. Some of those reasons are relgious reasons.
What's important is not the conclusions you want but the methodology you use."
See?
Then later on I went on to say...
"I'm sure you can find some site or other that claims that they really do, in fact I know you can, but walk a mile in my shoes. See it from my perspective.
Can you fairly and reasonably represent my position and follow my methodology on how I assess this particular claims?"
Remember now?
You still haven't told me how you assess particular claims. How do you know which websites to believe and which not to believe?
ReplyDeleteYou still haven't told me how you assess particular claims.
ReplyDeleteBob, we've argued over science many a time. You should know my methodology by now. Even if you ignore all of it and only read my posts on this thread alone, you could plainly see how my methodology works.
I even gave you a video. This video.
It's not like this a new concept. This is not our first dance.
(...awkward silence...)
Oh for pity's...
Fine.
I'm going to lead you through it baby-step by baby-step, ok?
Let's go with your claim as a classic example.
You claim that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory.
I reject that claim.
So that's our position on this topic.
One of us is wrong.
Either Intelligent Design is a scientific theory or it's not, agreed?
(...Bob agrees...)
Ok, so we should both agree with what we mean when we say scientific theory, right?
We both speak English and the term "scientific theory" clearly means something sigificant and straight away we can say that we are NOT referring to the word "theory" in the colloquial sense as in a hunch or a guess, right?
So the first thing we need to do is get a good, practical working definition of the term "scientific theory". Preferably a definition that the experts would agree with and that even a layman could understand and can be verified by any mainstream source, right?
(Tell me to slow down if I'm moving too fast for you.)
A theory is "a well-thought out group of propositions meant to explain facts about the real world" (Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p. 15). So far, so good. Both Evolution and Intelligent Design are "theories," in this formal technical sense.
ReplyDeleteBut Coyne goes on: "For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be testable and make verifiable predictions." At this point we run into a problem. Neither Evolution nor Intelligent Design are "testable." You cannot repeat them in a laboratory. Dr. Coyne would demur: Evolution is a scientific theory because it makes "verifiable predictions." Presumably new discoveries confirm what we already suspected, thereby verifying the theory. But there are several problems here. 1. The evidence is mainly circumstantial. If the new evidence is also circumstantial, then it can be interpreted the same way as the old evidence. In other words, Evolution turns out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Has the new evidence verified the theory? 2. Intelligent Design advocates can claim that every scientific discovery confirms their theory. Each new discovery only underscores the rational order and complexity of nature. Nature had to have been designed by a Being at least as intelligent as scientists who made the discoveries.
Evolution labors under the additional burden of having to argue that the appearance of design in nature is only illusory, when commonsense would tell you otherwise. The evidence is there; the Darwinians attempt to explain it away.
A theory is "a well-thought out group of propositions meant to explain facts about the real world"(..)But Coyne goes on...
ReplyDeleteAs well he should. You need to have a good, practical working definition of the term "scientific theory". Preferably a definition that the experts would agree with and that even a layman could understand and can be verified by any mainstream source. A single sentence doesn't cut it.
At this point we run into a problem. Neither Evolution nor Intelligent Design are "testable."
I don't care.
Focus.
You claim that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory.
I reject that claim.
We're not talking about Evolution.
We're talking about Intelligent Design.
You can't talk about Intelligent Design by talking about Evolution.
Doesn't work.
Any theory must stand or fall on it's own merits.
So to recap, you claim that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory.
I reject that claim.
My methodology is to look at the meaning of "scientific theory".
You find one.
You admit that Intelligent Design doesn't cut it as a scientific theory.
So..we're done here, right?
Right, as long as we both agree that the question of human origins (and the origin of species) lies outside the purview of science, since by the very nature of the case a prehistoric event cannot be "testable."
ReplyDeleteRight, as long as we both agree that the question of human origins (and the origin of species) lies outside the purview of science...
ReplyDeleteYou are not getting this.
You claim that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory.
Talking about something else will not help you.
Any theory must stand or fall on it's own merits.
This is how it's done on planet Earth. You have to be rational about this. Your claim is fraudulent. It's unsupportable.
The people that fed you that factoid were lying to you.