withallyourmind.net

In recent posts, I have discussed Wedderburn’s book, Beyond Resurrection. After establishing the resurrection’s centrality to the Christian faith, he concludes that the resurrection did not occur, and then attempts to recreate Christianity in his own image to salvage some hope in this world. I received a quote from a friend who had read Gerd Ludemann’s book, The Resurrection of Christ. Ludemann seems to reach the same conclusion as Wedderburn and then hopelessly attempts to salvage Christianity. Here’s the quote from Ludemann:

What meaning to life remains if all we face is death, not only as individuals but collectively as a species destined to extinction in the inevitable heat death of the universe? Christians whose faith is founded on life after death must ask such questions and I do not deny that a philosophy which maintains that the world is morally meaningful, that death is not the end, and that human beings - or at least some of them- will have another chance is emotionally more satisfying than naturalism. Nevertheless, I neither adopt such a simplistic stance nor share such a pessimistic outlook. True, I can no longer relate “Easter” directly to the Bible and the creed. The resurrection of Jesus is not a historical event, and therefore he will not come again. But being solidly based on historical scholarship, that conclusion is quite liberating. It enables me to see that “resurrection” must be understood metaphorically by applying it to this present life-in which we find ourselves, as it were, on a small raft adrift on a vast, dark ocean. An icy wind blows, and we on the raft are ultimately united only by the bond of death that will come to all of us. Nor can we expect compassion from the impersonal universe. Yet we may come to terms with the reality of such terrors by seeking a deeper foundation for life. We strive to create meaning in our lives by living humility, wisdom, and love. Faith, understood as that which empowers life, is effective in every act of courage on the face of this earth.. . Now freed from the undertow of fear in defiance of the absurd, I can join myself to all humanity by striving in all things to give the best that is in me, and to dedicate my efforts to the welfare of my fellow-voyagers.

Wow! Don’t you feel just all fuzzy, warm, and comforted! Paul was correct when he stated that if we have hope in this life only we are of all men most miserable. I simply remind you that there is convincing evidence for the resurrection, that our faith is not in vain.

Good and great God! How should I fear
To come to thee, if Christ not there!
Could I but think, he would not be
Present, to plead my cause for me;
To Hell I’d rather run, than I
Would see thy face, and he not by.

I have just completely Chapter One of Herbert Schlossberg’s Idols for Destruction. In this chapter, Schlossberg examines the idol of history. He contrasts the Christian view of history with the historicist view, concluding that the modern view of history claims one of two things:

1. History has no meaning.
2. History contains within itself its own principle of teleology. He quotes Herman Dooyeweerd as follows:

History has no windows looking out into eternity. Man is completely enclosed in it and cannot elevate himself to a supr-historical level of contemplation. History is the be-all and end-all of man’s existence and of his faculty of experience. And it is ruled by destiny, the inescapable fate.

The Christian view contrasts with the above in that it views history as having a beginning and an ending. Both beginning and ending are in God’s hands and everything that happens in between is infused with meaning and purpose. Schlossberg states:

Will and personality dominate everything and make history a moral arena.

He also claims that a Christian view of history brings five important benefits:

1. It distinguishes history from nature.
2. It restores meaning to events that otherwise would be without value or significance.
3. It enables us to place means and ends in proper perspective, subordinating the former to the latter.
4. It provides a basis for understanding change, because there is something that does not change.
5. It provides a principle of value against which all values are judged.

Schlossberg is certainly correct when he concludes his chapter on historicism with this:

The church’s praramount message about history, of course, is that the dividing line between B.C. and A.D. is not just a convention, and that the coming of Jesus Christ into history is the manifestation of eternity into time.

This is the third post discussing J. P. Moreland’s implications of libertarian causal agency on the presuppostion of methodological naturalism in the sciences. By viewing both divine and human action in terms of libertarian agency, Moreland asserts that free acts leave scientifically detectable gaps in the natural world. This is seems intuitively true. No wonder the naturalists are so eager to deny even the existence of gaps in science. Moreland quotes John Searle as stating:

Our conception of physical reality simply does not allow for radical libertarian freedom.

If libertarian agency is the correct model of divine action, then “whenever God acts in this way, there will be a gap in the natural world that could figure into scientific practice.”

Moreland turns the god-of-the-gaps objection to theistic science on its head and exposes the science-of-the-gaps argument. The claim that we can never conclude that an event is a miracle because science may find a natural cause for the event in the future is in error.

I think that this position is a question-begging, science-of-the-gaps argument to the effect that since natural causes have been found for a number of phenomena, then natural causes will be found for all of them.

There is no good reason to accept the claim that natural causes will be found for these “gaps” as true. If one allows that libertarian agency exists, there is good reason to accept it as false.

For the theist, gaps are not surprising because it is what one would expect given agent causation. Certain gaps have stubbornly persisted, not because science just hasn’t explained them yet, but because they are real. One expects to find gaps in the natural world if one believes in divine agency. This conception of the world is not, as naturalists would have us believe, a “science-stopper.” Ronald Nash, in chapter seven of the same book, In Defense of Miracles, compares the natural world to a box which God created, with God existing outside the box, but able to act causally within the box. He notes that:

…aside from the fact that the box is ‘open’ to causes existing outside the box, Christians’ scientific understanding of the natural order need not differ in any way from the naturalists’.

In other words, the natural order depends on God for both its existence and its order, but this in no way prohibits God from acting by divine agency from outside the box. When he does so, we would expect to find evidence to that effect.

In conclusion, no one denies that there are gaps in our present scientific understanding of the world from a naturalistic viewpoint. One may deny that these gaps are real and only a result of our limited naturalistic scientific knowledge or one may identify these gaps as evidence of agent causation. One does so on the basis of one’s worldview. It seemingly makes perfect sense for a theist to consider the second option.

Yesterday, I commented on Moreland’s argument in In Defense of Miracles that the presupposition of methodological naturalism in doing science is misguided. An important part of his argument concerns libertarian, agent causation.

Moreland claims:

…libertarian, agent acts (human or divine) result in gaps in the causal fabric of the natural world that should be acknowledged in the practice of science.

This libertarian model of agency has relevance for the practice of science. These “gaps” in the natural world are best explained in terms of agency. Moreland recognizes that some might argue that appealing to the actions of God to explain these gaps opens one up to two criticisms, namely, that the need to believe in God is diminished by the success of science in reducing the number of gaps and that it simply misunderstands the world in that there are no such real gaps in the natural world.
Moreland answers these objections, first of all, by pointing out that theists do not just claim that God only acts in the gaps. There is a relevant distinction between primary and secondary causation. Both categories of causes are important to a theist’s understanding of the natural world. Secondly, belief in these “gaps” is not based on the ignorance of natural causal mechanism, but on positive arguments that would lead one to expect such a gap.

The real question is, If God acts as a primary causal agent distinct from God’s action as a secondary cause, does it follow that there will be miraculous gaps in the natural causal fabric that could, in principle, be relevant to scientific methodology?

If the answer is yes, then methodological naturalism will lead the scientist down the wrong path and will leave him stranded at an erroneous conclusion.

Integral to this discussion is an examination of causation. It seems that methodological naturalism is limited to event-event causation. That is, that each event is caused by some previous event. All causes and effects are standing next to each other in some causal relation. Contrasted to this view is the libertarian view which grants that event-event causation is the correct account of the way the natural world normally works. However, there is another type of causation which may directly produce some effect, the free acts of persons. Persons are agents who simply have the power to act.

It is the self that acts, not a state in the self causing a moving of some kind.

In this context, Moreland evaluates the claim of Antony Flew that theists face a dilemma in requiring strong laws of nature and the admission of exception to those laws. His answer is that…

…advocates of libertarian agency have metaphysical and epistemological grounds for claiming that so-called strong laws of nature only govern event-event causality and are irrelevant for libertarian acts.

One must distinguish between event causation and libertarian acts.

J. P. Moreland argues in chapter eight of In Defense of Miracles that the necessity of a presumption of methodological naturalism as the foundation for the scientific enterprise is not only unnecessary, but misguided. He examines the relationship between science and theology in this chapter entitled Science, Miracles, Agency Theory, & The God-Of-The-Gaps. Moreland advocates a “theistic science” in which methodological naturalism is not a necessary precondition of doing science. Immediate, primary divine agency as causation is not ruled out a priori.

One of the most often-heard criticisms of the intelligent design movement is that it presents nothing more than a “God-of-the gaps argument”. The advocates of a naturalistic approach to science accuse theists of committing a logical fallacy in that the theist identifies a gap in scientific understanding and invokes the activity of God as an explanation for the gap. But is this fallacious reasoning? According to Bill Vallicella, on his website, Maverick Philosopher, it appears to be so only if it is stated as an appeal to ignorance. Stated thusly, the proposition might be worded, “Since we have no proof that science can explain this gap, it must be the work of God,” or “Since we have no proof that God did not work in this gap then it is true that God did so.” If Moreland’s argument fits into one of these two categories, then it would fall prey to the claims of fallacious reasoning. This is not the case, however. Vallicella states:

What then is to stop a theist, or more particularly an IDist, from arguing, not from ignorance, but from what we know about the operation of natural causes? There needn’t be any logical fallacy in GGR (God-of-the-Gaps Reasoning) since the IDist may be simply asserting a conditional proposition of the form:

If there were a wholly naturalistic explanation for phenomenon X, then, given what we know about the operation of natural causes, and given the protracted attempts to provide a naturalistic explanation of X, we would have found the explanation by now.

The IDist would then argue by modus tollens to the conclusion that no wholly naturalistic explanation for the phenomenon in question exists. If so, then the door is open to an explanation in terms of God or an irreducibly intelligent designer.

I was out of town over the weekend, officiating the wedding of another nephew and his bride (Congratulations to David and Kelly!). Because I had no internet access, our blog remained silent for a few days. But we’re back. I read a great post last evening by John Mark Reynolds on the importance of reading good books. Certainly not all books will edify, but there are great books which have been written through the ages which will make us better persons and better Christians. I excerpt a portion of his post here.

Books make arguments. As a result, leaders will always read. Leaders are persuaded by arguments while slaves listen only to their passions… Arguments are the orderly discovery of truth, goodness, and beauty. Learning to love a good argument opens the minds a leader to new possibilities based on reason and orderly thinking. The alternative is (to paraphrase Mary Poppins) “disorder, chaos, in short you get a ghastly mess.” Arguments do not mean meaningless disagreement, of course. A good argument moves from the known carefully through the unknown to new discoveries. An easy example of this process is found in natural science.

God wrote a book. That fact alone has inspired thousands of Christians to give their lives to teaching others to read. If we love God, then we will love His book… Of course this raises the obvious question, “Why read a book other than the Holy Book?” I am tempted to say, “Well, you are reading these words now. The least you could do is use your down time to read Plato! But that is a flippant answer to a serious question.

First, other books open us to the possibility of our own error. Is Christianity true? The good Christian will explore this idea openly. If God is Truth, then He does not need to be defended by ignorance or fear of other ideas. Instead, we honor Him best when we explore the possibility that we are wrong about what He has said. I have found this process only deepens my faith and makes me more secure and not less.

Second, other books open us to deeper truths in God’s Word. Much of the cultural background to Scripture can only be learned by grasping the culture that formed the languages of the Bible. Of course this includes Greek and opens up the great works of classic civilizations as important to the believer.

However, this is not all. Great minds often expose ideas that are found in Scripture by seeming chance. Each great writer contains the image of God in his soul. He writes as best he can and sometimes God gives Him a fragment of His great wisdom. Because this wisdom comes to us in a new and fresh language it often illuminates truths in Scripture that have become old to us or we have missed in a familiarity that should produce love but often breeds complacency.

Third, the Bible does not contain all truth, just all truth necessary for salvation. Much of good human life, appropriate human activity, is not the focus of the Bible. The Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation, but man is not merely a creature to be saved. He must also be civilized since he must live today in the cities of men and cannot live yet only in the City of God. Even in the garden which man tended, he had homely tasks (compared to his relationship with God) that are not the focus of Scripture. That homely wisdom about jobs, family, and the cosmos is the proper subject of our reading in other books.

Having said that, I can honestly say that the more I have learned to love and honor Plato, the greater my hunger for God’s Word. It shines greater by far in comparison. My love for my wife does not dim my love for God, just points the way to it. Even Republic could no more overshadow the Bible than a star could overshadow the rising Sun. For me, great books have only driven me deeper into a devotional and educational life centered in the Greatest Book.

Today, I was reminded of death. It was no unsettling experience. It rather was one of hope, reassurance and anticipation. I had not attended a funeral in quite some time, but today I attended the funeral of a dedicated Christian gentlemen who had lived 78 years on this earth. Today, he is with Christ. What a wonderful hope we have because of the resurrection! As the Mercy Me song, “I Can Only Imagine” was played, as the congregration sang “Because He Lives”, as a slide show of the life of this godly man flashed before us, as my wife, Cindy, sang “Sheltered in the Arms of God”, and as the pastor read a portion of scripture, I was awash in a sense of peace about death.

I do not think often enough about death. I am so busy living life that I had not recently thought seriously about what it means to die in Christ. Since we will live after the death and corruption of our earthly bodies, we have no ultimate reason to fear the power of death. The Christian’s future is secure because of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. An acquaintance of mine recently stated:

I regulary consider the fact that I will one day die. It is, after all, one of the few truths we can rely on. I do not find it morbid. I find it freeing. It helps me constantly reorganize my priorities and prepares me for entrance into eternal life. Those prepared to die are best prepared to live.

Yesterday, I began a review of Wedderburn’s Beyond Resurrection. I wrote mostly of what he got right. Today, I take issue with much of the remainder of the book.

Wedderburn stumbles, unnecessarily it seems, when he arrives at Paul’s discussion of the resurrection. He, incorrectly, asserts that Paul disagrees with Luke’s description of the resurrection body as being composed of flesh and bones. He supposes that Paul argues for a non-physical resurrection body based on his contrast of the resurrection body with our present body. This conclusion is not justified based on Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15. There is no difficulty in understanding Paul’s description of the resurrection body in a physical way; in fact, this is to be preferred in light of Paul’s overall teaching. Wedderburn, suddenly opts for a “spiritualization” of the resurrection.

He then, incorrectly concludes that the outcome of this historical investigation is a disquieting one. Rather than reason to the best explanation of the events, he capitulates to a “historical agnosticism” which seems to require absolute certainty. Although there are other explanations for the events surrounding the resurrection they are fraught with immense difficulties. The best explanation is the actual physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Rather than accept this conclusion, Wedderburn incredulously declares a …

… dead end for our understanding of the Christian faith and of God, with a coming to terms with the loss of what had previously been thought to be the firm basis for so many traditional assertions about God, Jesus and the world.

After firmly establishing that the resurrection is the foundation and cornerstone of Christian faith and then concluding that we cannot know if the resurrection actually occurred or not, Wedderburn rapidly degenerates into an attempt to salvage some positive outcome from this depressing conclusion. He frankly admits to not only going well beyond what Biblical writers say regarding the subject of the resurrection, but also to contradicting the New Testament scriptures. He states:

Having let go of this datum may prove to be a liberating experience for theology… one is free to formulate a view of God that is based on everyday religious experience instead of taking as its starting-point that which is quite unique.

Wedderburn’s God becomes whatever we wish it to be. A Christian, Buddhist, or Hindu conception is equally valid. Wedderburn finds some misplaced consolation in a God who is no longer omnipotent, but a mysterious “suffering” God who is struggling right along with the rest of us.

Wedderburn seems to look at the evidence, ignore the evidence, throw up his hands into a “we can never be sure” posture, and proceed to make up his own story that brings him comfort. We have no reason to accept nor find any comfort in anything he says about what God is since he has no basis from which to make any claims except that this is how God seems to him. He does not present a convincing argument to deny the historicity of the resurrection. He also does not present a convincing argument that anything can be salvaged from Christianity if the resurrection did not occur. Wedderburn starts out asserting that the resurrection is essential for Christianity, the he denies the resurrection, but then he attempts to salvage Christianity in some form of his own making. But, he fails. As Paul stated:

If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is empty, and your faith is empty…If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, you are still in your sins (1 Cor 15: 14, 17).

That is why the early Christians died for their testimony of Christ’s resurrection.

Mark Roberts posts a nice elegy for Steve Irwin here. He closes with these words:

What makes me saddest about Steve Irwin’s death isn’t my loss, or the world’s loss of an entertaining naturalist, but rather the loss suffered by his wife and two young children. This is especially poignant for me as someone with a wife and two children. I’m reminded that life is unpredictable, and that I can’t guarantee how many days I have left on this earth. So, in memory of Steve Irwin, today I will delight more in the good things of this life. Most of all, I will hug, not crocodiles, since I don’t have any of these around, but rather my wife and kids. I will treasure the time I have with them even more because of Steve Irwin. Thanks, mate!