withallyourmind.net

There’s an interesting post by Doug Groothuis over at his blog Thoughts of a Constructive Curmudgeon in which he argues that football is intrinsically violent and baseball is, among other things, morally, aesthetically, and intellectually superior, and therefore football should not be supported whereas if a sport must be supported (or watched or played), baseball should always be given priority. I don’t necessarily agree with his conclusion, but he makes some points that really got me thinking. I highly reccomend the read as an exercise in critical thinking. All I know for sure is that football is more fun to watch, and basketball is superior in every way to any other sport.

Today’s Christian poetry selection comes from a hymn by Augustus Toplady, also famous for “Rock of Ages.” It is a beautiful piece inviting meditation on the atonement and the assurance it brings.

From whence this fear and unbelief?
Hath not the Father put to grief
His spotless Son for me?
And will the righteous Judge of men
Condemn me for that debt of sin
Which, Lord, was charged on thee?

Complete atonement Thou hast made,
And to the utmost farthing paid
Whate’er Thy people owed;
Nor can His wrath on me take place,
If sheltered in Thy righteousness
And sprinkled with Thy blood.

If Thou hast my discharge procured,
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine,
Payment God cannot twice demand,
First at thy bleeding Surety’s hand,
And then again at mine.

Thurn then, my soul, unto thy rest;
The merits of they great High Priest
Have bought thy liberty;
Trust in His efficacious blood,
Nor fear thy bandishment from God,
Since Jesus died for thee!

Greg Koukl, at Stand to Reason, has written an excellent article on the issue of tolerance. The mantra of modern American is tolerance. One cannot publicly oppose the behavior or beliefs of others without being labeled with the dreaded “I” word (”intolerant”). Of course, there is one view which it is not intolerant to criticize. That is the view of evangelical Christians. Koukl rightly points out the hypocrisy and “intellectual cowardice” of simply brandishing the word “intolerant”. As he points out, it is much easier to hurl an insult - “you intolerant bigot” - than to confront an idea and either refute it or be changed by it.

In this article, Koukl talks about the definition of tolerance and asserts that today’s tolerance is not what tolerance used to be. He suggests that if one is charged with intolerance, she should ask for a definition.

He also differentiates between tolerance of people, tolerance of behavior, and tolerance of ideas. All persons are worthy of respect and courtesy, not all ideas deserve the same treatment. I would encourage a reading of the entire article.

One thing that all Christians believe is that God is without beginning or end. Nevertheless, there is some disagreement about whether he is eternal, existing outside of time, or everlasting, existing within time (using these terms in a technical manner, not the common use of them as synonyms). By far most Christian theologians throughout the centuries have regarded God as being outside of time, and I would venture to say that most lay Christians believe the same thing (as popularized by the works of CS Lewis and Phillip Yancey). But is this the right answer?

There doesn’t seem to be any clear biblical statements on the matter, and William Kneale has argued in his “Time and Eternity in Theology” that the Christian view of the timelessness of God wasn’t derived from the Bible at all, but was rather a hang-up from the Greek philosophy that was so prevalent during the years that the early church was first forming doctrine. This seems a likely origin for the idea to me, but I will not pursue it further here. And, at any rate, whether its origin was the Bible or hellenistic philosophy is a different debate than whether it is true or not (although, of course, if it were the case that careful exegesis showed it was actually what the Bible taught, then I would be compelled to believe it as true). Instead, I will seek to show that if God is anything like the Christian view says he is, particularly a redeeming and creating God, timelessness is an untenable position. It isn’t a very difficult argument, and I can see no real way of getting around it.

The philosophy of time, at least the little I have been exposed to, can get very complex, but all we need to examine this question is a very simple test of whether or not something is in time. I think change will do the job. What I mean is that it seems to be absolutely necessary that if anything undergoes change, it is in time. There may be more to time than this, and so change may not be a necessary condition, but it is at least a sufficient condition to establish the passage of time. Well then, how can we know if some being has undergone a temporal change? One way is to see if there is anything true of that being that either was or will be false of that being. If there is, then it seems as if it has changed, and therefore that some time had to have passed. How can we apply this test to God? Well, let’s think of creation for a second. Let’s think of the property of being “the one who created the universe.” Hopefully all Christians will say that this is a property that is had only by God. That is, it is true of God that he has the property “the one who created the universe.” But pay attention to the tense of created. If God really did create the universe from nothing, then it has not always been true of God that he has had this property, for presumably the universe has not always existed. This means that time has passed from God’s perspective.

Here’s a further example. Think of the property of “knowing it is true that Jeremy is at this very moment writing a blog.” I’d like to think that this is a property that God has, but which he did not have twenty minutes ago (since that would have made him mistaken). Something about God then has changed, namely his knowledge. Twenty minutes ago, he knew the proposition “Jeremy is at this very moment writing a blog” was false, but now he knows it is true. What else can this mean but that time is passing from his perspective as it is from mine.

There are many similar examples I could give, as well as other arguments from the type of absurdities that arise from the block universe that is implied in God-as-timeless views, but I think the examples given suffice to show that God must experience the passing of time along with us. There is a difference, however, that must be stressed: God is still the master of time in that everything that occurs within it is under his control. In addition, the view of God as everlasting but not eternal in no way diminishes his foreknowledge nor makes him any less powerful. It just allows us to have a more realistic (and biblical) view of God.

As Christian philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff concludes in his survey of the matter, “Though God is within time, yet he is Lord of time. The whole array of contingent temporal events is within his power…And that, along with the specific pattern of what he does, grounds all authentically biblical worship of, and obedience to, God. It is not because he is outside of time…that we are to worship and obey God. It is because of what he can and does bring about within time…”

Wesley J Smith, at Secondhand Smoke, has posted several recent blogs on the Hippocratic Oath. The original blog concerned the rewriting of the oath by Cornell University. The original oath can be found here. The Hippocratic Oath is taken by physicians across America as they graduated from medical school. Of note, there has been a watering down of the language of the oath over the past several years. Smith now calls the oath pabulum, insipid intellectual nourishment.

Two statements of importance have fallen into disfavor in more recent versions of the Oath. The first is a prohibition against abortion. More recently, yet, are prohibitions from doing anything to bring about death in a patient. The Cornell approved oath has also removed important language protecting the patient from being taken sexually advantage of.

It is sad that we are letting down on important safeguards meant to protect the patient. The devaluing of human life continues.

Here are the questions asked by audience members at the end of the debate (paraphrased):
1. To Ruse - How can Darwinian natural selection explain the existence of fruit trees?
2. To Ruse - Previous scientific theories have come and gone, so why should we put so much faith in Darwinism?
3. To Woodward (from a philosophy student at UCF) - Can Intelligent Design answer questions of ethics? What about tolerance?
4. To Woodward - What do you think about the Vatican rejecting Intelligent Design (USA today article on the day of the debate)?
5. To Woodward - If Intelligent Design is about science and not religion, Who gets to say who is the designer?
6. To Ruse - If Archaeoptyrex is a transitional form, what makes it beneficial? A creature which is 1/2 bird and 1/2 reptile ( a non-flying reptile with feathers) would not seem to be advantageous.

I will not comment on every question, but I found it interesting what the average college student might ask in this context. I found it peculiar that a question was posed to Woodward on what happens to values with ID. It seems to me that the questioner had an underlying assumption that those who hold to ID would be intolerant, and that that was the most important value of all. I guess that would be the most important value (if there could be one) in a purely materialistic world in which there are no absolutes. Ultimately, however, even tolerance cannot be maintained as a virtue without some non-materialistic grounding.

There was also the obligatory question concerning who gets to say who the designer is? Woodward responded by pointing out that that is not the pupose of ID. ID is a theory of design detection. It is a caricature of ID to imply otherwise. He asserted we do not find littler “Made by Yahweh” stickers in the corner of every natural object.

Ultimately, the experience was a good one. Anytime opponents can get together and rationally discuss their varying points of view, the truth may be advanced.

I’ve come under fire here for a recent blog as well as in comments on other sites. It seems there is concern because I use the term Darwinism interchangeably with naturalism and atheism. Here is a response to one my comments on a blog at Thinking Christian:

It would be really helpful if people would stop using terms like Darwinism, Evolutionism etc. when they are really talking about Atheism. Darwinism and Evolutionism have concise dictionary definitions and they say nothing of religion, the belief in God or the meaning of life.

A response in comments to one of my own blogs similarly complains:

Well, I’m what you would polemically label a “Darwinist” and I’m a Christian, so please stop lying about what I feel, Barry.

The reason I use the term Darwinism and not evolution is that they are not synonymous. I do know Christians who believe evolution is the process God used to create life as we know it. Most of the people I know believe in micro-evolution, as opposed to macro-evolution. I am not against evolution, per se. I do believe people deceive themselves when they try to maintain they can be a Darwinist and a Christian. I respect people, like Daniel Dennett, who are willing to admit the ramifications of what Darwin stated. Here are some responses Dennnet gave in a recent interview:

SPIEGEL: Another idea of Nietzsche’s was that God is dead. Is that also a logical conclusion reached by Darwinism?

Dennett: It is a very clear consequence. The argument for design, I think, has always been the best argument for the existence of God and when Darwin comes along, he pulls the rug out from under that.

SPIEGEL: How is it, then, that many natural scientists are religious? How does that go together with their work?

Dennett: It goes together by not looking too closely at how it goes together. It’s a trick we can all do. We all have our ways of compartmentalizing our lives so that we confront contradictions as seldom as possible.

SPIEGEL: Your colleague Michael Ruse has accused you of stepping out of the field of science and into social science and religion with your theories. He’s even said you are inadvertently aiding the Intelligent Design movement as a result.

Dennett: Michael is just trying to put the implications of Darwin’s insights into soft focus and to reassure people that there is not as much conflict between the perspective of evolutionary biology and their traditional ways of thinking.

So, I certainly do not agree with Dennett that Darwinism is true, but we do agree regarding its implications.

After both Woodward and Ruse had offered their opening 25 minute presentations, they each asked one question of their opponent. Woodward asked Ruse how he might correct a physics professor at an ivy league school who was seriously considering ID theory. This question did not seem very effective. Ruse, quite reasonably, answered that he would have to sit down and speak with this professor in order to address any specific concerns he might have. The debate was not advanced with Woodward’s question.

Ruse then asked what I thought was a very important question. He stated that Phillip Johnson makes it very clear that ID is not about fossils and such, but about issues of morality. He questioned Woodward as to if this isn’t really the case. Ruse suggested this debate is really more about naturalism, materialism, atheism, and non-theism. He characterized it as a battle for the American soul. He asserted the ID issue has less to do with science, and more to do with an agenda which is anti-gay, anti-abortion, and pro-death penalty.

I think Ruse’s question is important to consider, and has been considered often. There are certainly many issues involved with Dariwinian theory and ID theory. Both ID and Darwinism are supported by underlying philosophical presuppositions. Darwinism is built on a materialistic universe. ID theory is at least open to supernatural intelligence, although it explicity makes no claim regarding the identity of the designer. Darwinism does remove any objective basis for morality and leads to a morally relativistic world (this statement much to the protestations of many Darwinists, but readilty admitted by others). At any rate, I think it is important to point out that their are issues of morality which play into the discussion. However, to state that ID theory and Darwinism have associated moral implications and to imply that this is what ID is all about does a great injustice to the science involved. One can debate the scientific merits of ID and Darwinism apart from the moral issues. Unfortunately, Darwinians refuse to admit their are scientific concerns at all. Ruse’s question appears to me to be an attempt to throw up a smokescreen, obscuring the real issues at hand.

Again, to my disappointment, Woodward didn’t directly address Ruse’s question directly. He did make a good point however: Intelligent design does not prejudge any moral issues. ID is open to all possibilities (I’m assuming Woodward includes moral issues, here). Atheists prejudge the answer. There can be no correct answers involving the supernatural. All there is is the material.

My next post will probably be the last on this debate. There I will comment on questions from the audience at the conclusion of the debate.

GLORY be to God for dappled things,
For skies of couple-color as a brinded cow,
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls, finches’ wings;
Landscape plotted and pieced, fold, fallow and plough,
And all trades, their gear and tackle and trim.
All things counter, original, spare, strange,
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim.
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change;
Praise him.

As alluded to in my initial blog concerning the Orlando debate between Woodward and Ruse, each used varying approaches to make their point. Woodward attempted to lay a foundation for understanding some perceived weaknesses in Darwinian theory, and provide the basis for Intelligent Design as science.

Ruse, on the other hand, spent the majority of his time caricaturing evangelical Americans. A friend who attended the debate with me who has spent some time in England commented that he displayed the typical English arrogance toward anything American. I can’t comment on that directly as I have little experience with English attitudes. I was very disappointed that someone as respected as Ruse did not have something more substantive to offer. His arguments resorted to the same kind of Ad Hominem rhetoric that we hear all the time in the media. ID is puported to be an attempt by simple, backwards Christian fundamentalists wanting to teach the Bible in public school.

Ruse spent more time on the Scopes Monkey Trial and Pat Robertson than on Intelligent Design. Certainly, Pat Robertson is not a leading proponent and spokesperson for ID. He would do better to refute the claims of Behe, Dembski, and others regarding the evidence for Intelligent Design and less time beating up the straw man of Pat Robertson.

Ruse concluded with the well-worn, but badly mistaken, habit of criticizing the designer. Whether one feels a design is the perfect design does not limit one’s ability to infer design when the evidence supports it. Imperfect Design is still design.

Next, I will comment on Ruse’s and Woodward’s final questions for each other and also some of the audience questions at the end of the debate.