withallyourmind.net

In evil long I took delight,
Unawed by shame or fear;
Till a new object struck my sight,
And stopped my wild career.

I saw one hanging on a tree,
In agonies and blood;
Who fixed his languid eyes on me,
As near his cross I stood.

Sure, never till my latest breath,
Can I forget that look;
It seemed to charge me with his death,
Though not a word he spoke.

My conscience felt, and owned the guilt,
And plunged me in despair;
I saw my sins his blood had spilt,
And helped to nail him there.

Alas! I knew not what I did,
But now my tears are vain;
Where shall my trembling soul be hid?
For I the LORD have slain.

A second look he gave, which said,
“I freely all forgive;
This blood is for thy ransom paid,
I die, that thou may’st live.”

Thus, while his death my sin displays,
In all its blackest hue;
(Such is the mystery of grace)
It seals my pardon too.

With pleasing grief and mournful joy,
My spirit now is filled;
That I should such a life destroy,
Yet live by him I killed.

Almost every blog I read has at least mentioned the recently discovered Gospel of Judas. I’ve not mentioned it because so many others have already said so much. I mention it hear because Mark Roberts has posted an excellent blog today which provides about all the information one might wish to know about this work. If you are interested in reading the gospel for yourself, it is accessible here. In answer to the question, “What is the Gospel of Judas?”, he states:

The Gospel of Judas is a portion of a centuries-old codex (book) written in Coptic (an ancient Egyptian language). Included in this codex are other documents known to be Gnostic. This suggests that the contents of the Gospel of Judas may well be Gnostic, an assumption confirmed by the evidence of the text.

The Gospel of Judas does not claim to be a firsthand account by Judas. He is not the narrator, but a chief participant, along with Jesus. The other disciples appear in this gospel. That are insignificant and in fact condemned by Jesus Himself.

Of note, National Geographic and others associated with the revealing of this gospel often seem to imply that this gospel is “equally valid” with the gospels found in the scripture. NG’s website makes this claim:

The Gospel of Judas gives a different view of the relationship between Jesus and Judas, offering new insights into the disciple who betrayed Jesus. Unlike the accounts in the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in which Judas is portrayed as a reviled traitor, this newly discovered Gospel portrays Judas as acting at Jesus’ request when he hands Jesus over to the authorities.

The bottom line is that this gospel contributes little, if anything, to increase our understanding of the relationship between Christ and Judas or any of his other disciples.According to Roberts:

This is skating on thin ice. Surely the Gospel of Judas offers a different view of the relationship between Jesus and Judas, but I seriously doubt whether it offers “new insights into the disciple who betrayed Jesus.” It does indeed show us what some Gnostics, writing a century after Judas’s death, thought of him. But it’s highly unlikely that the Gospel of Judas tells us anything about the actual Judas, or the actual Jesus, for that matter.

By the way, Roberts’ blog is part of an overall series on The DaVinci Code which is also quite informative to anyone interested.

This is the third in a series of blogs examining J. P. Moreland’s introduction to the book The Creation Hypothesis. In the last blog, we examined Moreland’s claim that theology and philosophy, as well as science, are all domains that contain items of knowledge and rationally justified belief. The best science, Moreland argues, is a theistic science, one which is informed by theology and philosophy. I believe he would also argue that the best theology is one which is informed by philosophy and science. As Christians, we should strive for an integrated worldview.

Moreland next examines a philosophical argument for God’s existence, known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. His formulation of the argument is diagrammed as a series of exhaustive dilemmas.

1. The universe had a beginning as opposed to not having a beginning
2. The beginning of the universe was caused as opposed to uncaused.
3. The cause of the beginning of the universe was personal as opposed to unpersonal.

In this blog we will look at the first premise. Support for this premise has both philosophical and scientific support. The impossibility of crossing or traversing an actual infinite number of events one at a time lends strong backing for the claim that the universe had a beginning. It is impossible to cross an actual infinite. One could begin at zero and count forever and never reach a time when he could claim an actual infinite amount of numbers had been reached. Likewise, one could never count from zero to a negative infinity. Moreland states:

Since one cannot cross an acutal infinite (regardless of whether you count to positive infinity from zero or to zero from negative infinity), then the present moment could never have arrived if the universe were beginningless. That means that since the present is real, it was only preceded by a finite past, and there was a beginning or first event!

An objection states that if one begins with the present and runs through the past one event at a time, then one will never come to an event from which the present is unreachable. Moreland claims this is a gross misunderstanding of the argument. Critics err in picturing a beginningless universe as one with an indefinite past, not an infinite one.

The Kalam argument does not assume a beginning time infinitely far from the present. It is precisely the lack of such a beginning that causes most of the problems…Further, coming to the present moment by crossing an infinite past would be a journey that could not even get started…Such a task is like trying to jump out of an infinitely bottomless pit.

Premise one also gains support from at least two scientific arguments: The Big Bang Theory and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The Big Bang theory, which currently is widely respected, does confirm the fact that the universe had a beginning. The second law of thermodyamics states that entropy is always increasing in any system (e.g., things are going from an ordered high energy state to a disordered low energy state). We witness this law in action every day. The second law is applicable to this premise in this way, according to Moreland:

The universe is irreversibly running out of energy available to do work, and since it hasn’t reached an equilibrium state yet, it must have had a finite past. Why? If the universe had already existed throughout an actually infinite past then it would have reached an equilibrium state an infinite number of days ago, but it obviously has not done so.

Next, a look at premise two: The beginning of the universe was caused.

Biola University, at which I am now studying for an M.A. in Christian Apologetics, has announced that noted former athiest Anthony Flew will receive the Philip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth on May11. Flew is the second recipient of this award. The first was Philip E. Johnson, himself. Biola said this about Flew:

Flew, 83, argued in books such as God and Philosophy (1966) and The Presumption of Atheism (1984) that one should presuppose atheism until evidence for God proves otherwise. Then, in 2004, the Oxford-educated philosopher stunned the intellectual world by relinquishing his long-held atheism, claiming that the natural sciences supplied evidence for the existence of a designing intelligence. Flew said that he simply “had to go where the evidence leads.”

The Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth was given to Flew for his lifelong commitment to free and open inquiry and to standing fast against intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression. Flew drew scorn from skeptics following his shift in views. When informed that he was this year’s award winner, he remarked, “In light of my work and publications in this area and the criticism I’ve received for changing my position, I appreciate receiving this award.”

Here is the text of an exclusive interview with Flew published in Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, in 2004. The interviewer is Gary Habermas. It is quite interesting.

Continuing a discussion of J. P. Moreland’s introduction to the book The Creation Hypothesis, I now turn to scientism, the belief that science is the only paradigm by which we can obtain truth and rationality. Everything outside of science is merely belief and subjective opinion. The only truth we may know is known through scientific methodology. Although many have not thought through the ramifications of such a belief, many are quick to give it credence.

Moreland distinguishes between two forms of scientism: Strong scientism and weak scientism. Strong scientism holds that their are no truths apart from scientific truths, and even if there are, we have no good reasons to believe them. On the other hand, weak scientism allows for the existence of some truths apart from science, however, all other intellectual activity is subjugated to science, a far more superior and valuable source of knowledge. According to Moreland:

If strong scientism is true, then theology is not a cognitive enterprise at all and there is no such thing as theological knowledge. If weak scientism is true, then the conversation between science and theology will be a monologue, with theology listening to science and waiting for science to give it support . For thinking Christians, either of these alternatives are unacceptable.

Note that strong scientism is a self-refuting belief, i.e., it falsifies itself. Strong scientism is not itself a propostion of science, but a proposition of philosophy about science which states that only scientific propostions are true or rational. Strong scientism is itself proposed as a true, rationally justified position to believe. On what basis? Scientific analysis? No. A self-refuting proposition is necessarily false - it is not possible for it to be true.

Two other problems exist for both weak and strong scientism. First, neither allows for the stating and defending of the necessary propositions which for science to be carried out (e.g., assuming scientific realism, the orderly nature of the external world). The practice of science presupposes several very important philosophical beliefs, without which it cannot work. Moreland states:

The conclusions of science cannot be more certain than the presuppostions it rests on.

John Kekes has stated:

A successful argument for science being the paradigm of rationality must be based on the demonstration that the presuppositions of science are preferable to other propositions. That demonstration requires showing that science, relying on these presuppostions, is better at solving some problems and achieving some ideals than its competitors. But showing that cannot be the task of science. Is is, in fact, one task of philosophy…Hence, philosophy, and not science, is a stronger candidate for being the very paradigm of rationality.

The second problem for both forms of scientism, according to Moreland, is the simple fact that true, rationally justified beliefs exist in many other fields outside of science. For example, “Red is a color” and “I am now thinking about science” are better justified statements than some believed withing science, such as “Evolution takes place throught a series of very small steps”.

Now, I am not bashing science. As a physician I have a strong science background and consider myself to be a scientist of sorts (clinical). The point is that there are domains of knowledge outside of science, including theology and philosophy. As Moreland states, an integrated worldview will consider all three domains. Theistic science attempts to do just that. Next, a look at natural theology.

Sorry, guys. After reading this story about how Jesus really walked “on an isolated patch of floating ice,” I think I’m going to have to give up my faith in the reliability of the gospels. And I’m so proud that the discovery came from my own school. (end sarcasm)

Here is the reaction of one of my friends upon reading the story: “The absurdity of academia seems to precede all attempts at satire. No word from the scientist on how it is that Jesus managed to walk on a slab of ice all the way from the shore to a boat during a wind storm. Next up, I show how the disciples visions of a post-crucfixion Jesus arose from a rare disorder that generates after-images of entire human beings!”

J. P. Moreland is editor of an important book called The Creation Hypothesis. He writes the introduction, although many of the chapters are written by others. I was impressed by his succinct analysis of many of the issues surrounding evolution, intelligent design, and creationism in his introduction. The introduction deals not with scientific issues in detail (the rest of the book does that), but rather examines important issues and philosophical questions which must be addressed in order to get to the science. I hope to summarize some of his thoughts over the course of a few blogs.

He presents several models of science/theology interaction and proposes that the following is the most accurate assessment:

Science and theology are interacting approaches to the same reality that can be in conflict in various ways (e.g., mutually exclusive, or logically consistent but not mutually reinforcing) or can be in concord in various ways.

Many may reject this statement, but Moreland hopes to defend his position by arguing for what he calls “theistic science”, which can serve as a research program. In developing an integrated worldview, the Christian should consult all he has reason to believe in forming and testing hypotheses, and among the many things which should be consulted are propositions of theology and philosophy. Two propositions supports theistic science:
1. God has, both through primary and secondary causation, created and designed the world for a purpose and has directly intevened at various times in its development.
2. Proposition 1 can appropriately enter into the very fabric of the practice of science and the utilization of scientific methodology.

Modern science cries, “Foul!”, at even the thought of “theistic” science. But all this really entails is approaching science from the perspective of a Christian worldview. Modern science is bolstered by a quite popular ideology, called scientism, which would render pointless the discussion of theistic science. It is this to which Moreland turns next, and to which I will turn in my next post.

This week’s Christian poetry selection, c. 1635

I love (and have some cause to love) the earth;
She is my Maker’s creature, therefore good:
She is my mother, for she gave me birth;
She is my tender nurse; she gives me food;
But what’s a creature, Lord, compared with Thee?
Or what’s my mother, or my nurse to me?

I love the air; her dainty fruits refresh
My drooping soul, and to new sweets invite me;
Her shrill-mouth’d choirs sustain me with their flesh.
And with their polyphonian notes delight me:
But what’s the air, or all the sweets that she
Can bless my soul withal, compared to Thee?

I love the sea; she is my fellow-creature,
My careful purveyor; she provides me store;
She walls me round; she makes my diet greater;
She wafts my treasure from a foreign shore:
But, Lord of oceans, when compared with Thee,
What is the ocean, or her wealth to me?

To heaven’s high city I direct my journey,
Whose spangled suburbs entertain mine eye;
Mine eye, by contemplation’s great attorney,
Transcends the crystal pavement of the sky.
But what is heaven, great God, compared to Thee?
Without Thy presence, heaven’s no heaven to me.

Without Thy presence, earth gives no reflection:
Without Thy presence, sea affords no treasure;
Without Thy presence, air’s a rank infection;
Without Thy presence, heaven itself no pleasure:
If not possess’d, if not enjoyed in Thee,
What’s earth, or sea, or air, or heaven to me?

The highest honours that the world can boast,
Are subjects far too low for my desire;
Its brightest gleams of glory are, at most,
But dying sparkles of Thy living fire:
The brightest flames that earth can kindle, be
But nightly glowworms, if compared to Thee.

Without Thy presence, wealth is bags of cares;
Wisdom, but folly; joy, disquiet, sadness;
Friendship is treason, and delights are snares;
Pleasures, but pain; and mirth, but pleasing madness:
Without Thee, Lord, things be not what they be,
Nor have their being when compared with Thee.

In having all things, and not Thee, what have I?
Not having Thee, what have my labours got?
Let me enjoy but Thee, what have my labours got?
And having Thee alone, what have I not?
I wish nor sea nor land; nor would I be
Possess’d of heaven, heaven unpossess’d of Thee.