withallyourmind.net

    One objection that religious pluralists often present to Christians is based upon the large role that culture and society play in the formation of religious beliefs. For example, the objection is often phrased like this: “If you were born in India, you would be a Hindu.” The obvious response to a statement like this is “So what?” If the person is implying that your belief in Christianity must be false because of the conditions in which it arose, this is an obvious example of the genetic fallacy - determining the truth value of a proposition based only upon its origin. It is true that the origins of a belief may cause you to be suspicious of its truth value. For example, if you see that I am hit hard on the head by a chandelier that I am walking under (if only I were that tall) and I immediately shout “I believe that 7851 divided by 3 is 2617!” you may wonder if what I blurted out was true or just nonsense. Even in this extreme case where you have a good reason to doubt the truth of my proclamation, the truth of my statement must be examined for what it is, not for how it came to be believed. In this case, my belief is true.
    Despite the obvious philosophical problems of this objection, some philosophers, most notably “Christian” scholar John Hick, claim that, knowing the impact of geography on religious belief, it is arbitrary and even arrogant to claim that one’s religous belief is exclusively true. Christian philosophers Peter van Inwagen and Alvin Plantinga give two tactical analogies that expose the poor reasoning of the pluralist.
    Van Inwagen gives an analogy from politics. Quoting from Paul Copan’s summary of his analogy (see endnote):

As with the multiple religious alternatives in the world, there are many political alternatives—monarchy, Fascism, Marxism, or democracy. What if we tell a Marxist or a conservative Republican that if he had been raised in Nazi Germany, he would have belonged to the Hitler Youth? He will probably agree but ask what your point is. What is the point of this analogy? Just because a diversity of political options has existed in the history of the world doesn’t obstruct us from evaluating one political system as superior to its rivals. Just because there have been many political systems and we could have grown up in an alternate, inferior political system doesn’t mean we are arrogant for believing one is simply better.

    Alvin Plantinga shows that the pluralist’s argument is self-defeating :

Pluralism isn’t and hasn’t been widely popular in the world at large; if the pluralist had been born in Madagascar, or medieval France, he probably wouldn’t have been a pluralist. Does it follow that he shouldn’t be a pluralist or that his pluralistic beliefs are produced in him by an unreliable belief-producing process? I doubt it.

    The point is that if the pluralist is going to argue that the impact of culture on a belief makes it unreliable, his own belief in pluralism is open to the same objection.

(Quotes drawn from Ch. 13 of Paul Copan’s True for You, But Not for Me. Can be accessed here)

Why did the scientific revolution occur where and when it did? Why did it occur in late midieval and renaissance Europe? Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards provides the answers to these questions in The Priveleged Planet.

While we are often told that religious beliefs tend to hinder scientific inquiry, many recent historians instead have argued that science grew out of a theistic milieu and that a number of theological beliefs were essential to the rise of science in Western Europe in the sixteenth and seventeeth centuries. Human beings in every culture could observe the natural world around them. Only one culture had the philosophical and theological pre-conditions that gave birth to modern science. The Judeo-Christian tradition, quite contrary to modern stereotype, helped correct and transform the Greek tradition when the two worldviews began to interact in the Middle Ages.

The authors go on to enumerate several reasons why the scientific revolution occured within a Christian context:

1. The Christian notion that time is linear and is fundamental to the physical universe, rather than an illusion. Cosmic history does not go in circles.

2. The Biblical distinction between Creator and creation. In contrast to the Greeks, matter was considered to be good. Nature was to be respected, not worshiped as a God. Thus, nature could be subjected to experimentation and investigation.

3. The Christian belief that God was free in creating the world. Nature is contingent. It may not have existed or might have existed with different properties than it has. This view results in a feeling that nature’s properties must be discovered rather than deduced from principles of logic or mathematics.

4. The Christian belief that God is good and rational, in contrast to the pagan beliefs that the gods are fickle, irrational, or even malicious. This results in seeing the cosmos as orderly and lawful in its structure and behavior. Nature does not behave capriciously, but orderly.

5. The Christian belief that there is one God and that mankind is made in His image led to the expectation that nature has a sort of unity and is accessible to the human mind.

The irrational belief that Intelligent Design will destroy science is ludicrous. Although ID does not attempt to identify the designer, it is not incorrect to do so outside of science. Religion and science are not at war. Basic, rational, Christian beliefs cradled modern science in its infancy and nurtured it as it grew.

Albert Mohler has an excellent article on his website today dealing with Thomas Jefferson and the quest for the historical Jesus. His comments on Jefferson’s beliefs are enlightening. He also does a great job dealing with the futility of the “quest for the historical Jesus”. There are not two Jesuses. There is only one. Either he was who he said he was, God in flesh, or he was not. The historical Jesus is the Jesus of the New Testament.

Dr. Mohler made a comment in his article, however, that always makes me cringe. Speaking of the effort to secularize Jesus, he states:

This effort began with the emergence of Enlightenment thought and the elevation of human reason above divine revelation

It seems that reason and revelation are often thought of in an antagonistic sort of way. Reason fights against revelation, and revelation opposes reason. There certainly does appear to have been times in the scripture when God revealed his plans for an individual that may not have appeared reasonable to that individual. This is not, however, typical of God’s divine revelation. In fact, God’s revelation is perfectly rational (note, not naturalistic, but rational).

Reason is not, in my opinion, something that is in opposition to faith or revelation. Reason is simply a tool that has been given to mankind by God for the purpose of arriving at correct and true beliefs about ourselves, the world, and our God. Erroneous beliefs result, not from elevating reason above revelation, but by misapplying and misusing our rational faculties. I believe that people arrive at different conclusions, not because they rely too much on reason, but because they rely too little on reason. Their reason is corrupted by preconceived wishes, beliefs, and desires.

Reason has led me to God. I could not confess something to be true which was against reason. God’s revelation is rational. The world itself is rational because God is a rational being. He expects us to use our reason, along with the scriptures (revelation), to arrive at true knowledge.

First of all, I am now back from a recent trip where I enjoyed some much needed rest and relaxation. So, back to the blog. I have just finished reading The Design Revolution by William A. Dembski. I have shared a few thoughts along the way in previous blogs. I thought I might offer a quick review of the book at this point.

Dembski, of course, is in the forefront of the Intelligent Design movement. He holds a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, as well as degrees in statistics, theology, and psychology. This book approaches ID from a perspective of answering objections offered by its opponents. Each chapter proposes a question and then answers it in a complete, concise manner. It is a thorough work and a good resource for anyone interested in Intelligent Design. He addresses many issues, philosophical and scientific. His arguments are powerful and well-reasoned. Although most of this book can be enjoyed and understood by most anyone, there are some chapters which may be difficult for someone without a background in science or math.

Dembski presents a convincing argument for a new (actually old) paradigm for science. Here are his own words contained at the close of the preface:

But visions endure only so long as they can be grounded in reality. The Darwinian vision of life is fast losing touch with reality and specifically with the design that pervades the world at the biochemical level — a world about which Darwin knew nothing. As with all dying paradigms, Darwinism’s old guard will not, to paraphrase Dylan Thomas, go gently into that good night. Count on them to rage against the dying light. Notwithstanding, the Darwinian vision is on the way out, to be replaced by a new vision that captures our imagination and at the same time is grounded in reality. Intelligent Design is that new vision.

Interesting Thanksgiving Reading: Proclaimed in the midst of the Civil War. Lincoln was a president who understood well the sovereignty and providence of God.

Proclamation Establishing Thanksgiving Day

October 3, 1863

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe had enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years, with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-eighth.

A. Lincoln

Jazz is perhaps my favorite genre of music, so I was delighted to find this article on glorifying God through jazz. (HT: Thinking Christian) I actually began as a music major at college here, but have switched to a minor while I pursue philosophy. I play(ed) classical guitar and am taking a jazz improvisation class now. It is fun, although I haven’t put in enough practice time to really see improvements. The main thing I have gotten out of it is a new respect for jazz players. Sometimes our teacher will demonstrate the technical facility we are trying to reach and will play a chord on the piano or a backing track of II V I’s on CD and explain how at the exact second he hears a chord, he “spontaneously composes” a phrase in his head (he actually hears the whole thing and can sing it out loud), and then instantaneously transfers it to his tenor sax without even thinking about it. Needless to say, it’s amazing and beautiful. It really is a testament to what humans are capable of. Here are four things from the article that jazz can tell us about Christian spirtuality:

Jazz fights against privatization. Jazz is about interaction. There is constant interplay between the musicians—and with the listeners, too. Jazz is communal music that resists our tendency toward individualism.

Jazz can help our skewed eschatology by recovering the already/not yet tension. Clapp points out that jazz (like the African spirituals that gave it birth) wrestles with joy in the midst of sadness, longing in hope. It is filled with tension, and thus expresses life after the Fall.

Jazz shows us our need for roots and wings! Jazz teaches respect for a tradition, a community bigger than our peers. Jazz players must learn from the masters and yet still find their own voices. There is a great model of discipleship here, teaching us how to embody a tradition while maintaining our individuality.

Jazz teaches us improvisation as a way of life. Jazz is intuitive and celebrates the process of discovery. There are almost infinite ways from A to B (a walking bass line is a good example), and jazz musicians love to explore as many as they can, soloing over the same chord changes chorus after chorus. There is freedom within structure—we create as image-bearers of a creative God. Often there is a sense of stepping out a bit, feeling that the water is fine, and then jumping in and swimming all around, exploring rhythm, timbre, and harmony within a particular structure. Minority cultures have always been better at improvising, making the most of what they have been given, and it is a timely skill for Christians to develop as we engage a post-Christian culture.

Phillip Johnson has a good post today in his weekly dose of Spurgeon on the extent of the atonement for those who are not ultimately saved. Spurgeon’s view matches the one that I hold on the atonement, although I believe my father (not being as reformed in his thinking) may disagree with me. My view, which I will perhaps present a longer argument for at another time, is that if Christ’s death really cancelled a person’s sins, then that person must be saved. Not everyone is saved, so His death obviously did not accomplish the same thing for everyone. Does this mean that only the “elect” receive benefit from the cross? By no means! The Bible is clear that even one sin merits death and that God, being just, cannot simply wink at sin and pretend it never happened. Every pleasure and every breath and even every moment that is not spent under the wrath of God, both for the believer and the unbeliever, is a precious and undeserved gift bought with the blood of Jesus. Here is an explication by John Piper from his church’s statement on the five points of Calvinism with which I wholeheartedly agree (quote brought to my attention by Bob Hayton):

We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is “the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God’s mercy toward unbelievers—from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16)—is made possible because of the cross.

This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God’s righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God’s mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.

Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ’s death so clearly demonstrates God’s just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.

But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died “especially.”

I (Barry) will be away from home for a few days. If I have computer access, I may still post some blogs. If not, I will be back soon. Look for more blogs from Jeremy.

I have one more observation on the lecture I attended by Reasons To Believe’s Hugh Ross. He asserts that it is the predictability of his model that separates it from the general intelligent design movement. He uses the Bible to develop a model of science which he states provides a framework to make predictions which may be verified scientifically.

My first concern is this. The Bible was not meant to be a science textbook. Certainly, it speaks of the universe in which we live, but we do a disservice to Scripture to use it as a scientific model. I feel one may do more harm to the scriptures than good by making it support one’s particular interpretation of cosmology. This brings me to my second point.

Secondly, I’m not impressed by the predictions which are made by RTB. While I could not write fast enough to list the several predictions discussed by Dr. Ross, I do not believe my memory fails me in stating that they really were not new predictions at all. They predicted that present scientific theories which support their view of cosmology will be strengthened, not weakened (e.g. Big Bang cosmology). That is all great, but I don’t see any new predictions in that.

Dr. Ross pointed out how the Bible predicted the now common scientific belief of an expanding universe. Biblical passages supporting this belief are primarily those in which it is stated that God “stretched” out the universe. One can certainly see how one might equate stretching with expanding. My problem is not so much that this interpretation is a stretch (pun intended), but that it is a prediction made by Christians after the fact was established. It would have been most impressive if theologians through the centuries has suggested that we lived in an expanding universe because of these passages. When science establishes that we live in an expanding universe, and then we read back into passages certain interpretations, that diminishes the integrity of the prediction.

Perhaps Dr. Ross and his colleagues will be successful in making new predictions that science will confirm to be true. I hope so and wish him the very best in his efforts.

Seeing that Dr. Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist, it is not surprising that most of his lecture I attended concerned astronomy and its support for Christian theism. I believe Dr. Ross convincingly illustrates that the heavens do declare the glory of God.

He spent a good portion of the evening talking about the Big Bang theory. I must admit, as a young Christian who lacked a great deal of scientific, as well as apologetic, acumen, I despised the Big Bang. When I walked through the science museums and saw the displays trumpeting the truth of the Big Bang, I snickered with incredulity.

I now realize that the Big Bang presents a powerful evidence for the existence of God. The Big Bang states that there was a time when our universe did not exist, and that the Big Bang is when it came into existence (creatio ex nihilo). The Kalam Cosmological Argument, dating back to midieval muslim philosophers, has been recently popularized by William Lane Craig. It states simply this:

(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause (God)

The crucial premise of this argument is (2) The universe began to exist. Big Bang Cosmology, which is the widely-accepted theory concerning the origins of the universe among scientists, establishes this premise. As Hugh Ross states on his website, the only people who oppose this theory do so on philosophical and not scientific grounds. One group (a few secular scientists) opposes it because of its theological implications…God is the cause of the universe. Another group (some Christians) oppose it because they (incorrectly) feel it displaces God as the cause of the universe.

As someone who has a deep interest in science and Christianity, I am filled with excitement and anticipation. I am certain that the more we learn about the universe and all that is in it through science, the firmer our faith in God will be established. Truth need never fear intense scrutiny.