withallyourmind.net

A long time ago I dedicated a couple posts to the examination (and critique) of Dembski’s explanatory filter for detecting design in nature. They are here and here. In this post I would like to discuss an argument for methodological naturalism that has affected how I think about design and evolution. Although I make no claim to do his paper justice, my thoughts in this and my previous posts have been influenced by Michael Murray’s “Natural Providence (or Design Trouble)“.

This argument takes it for granted that design is detectable in the natural world and that it is possible for God (if He exists) to accomplish His designs in the world either through direct intervention or through natural law. These are premises that pretty much any person interested in intelligent design would be willing to grant. The argument then is based on analogy with the following example:

Suppose a friend invites you and a few other people over for a high-stakes poker game and for the sake of integrity suggests a new deck of cards be used for each round. After five rounds, however, you become nearly certain that he has been cheating: he has won each round with a hand of four aces. However, before you have a chance to object, he says he has some very important business to attend to and kicks you and everyone else out of the house. Now, in a situation like this, you seem to have every bit of justification for your belief that your friend had some devious design for the game from the beginning. However, notice this: although you know that he cheated, you still aren’t sure how. It’s possible that he directly intervened in the game by adding in cards from his sleeves or pockets. However, it’s also possible that he instead stacked the decks before the game began. The point is that even if a design belief is justified, it can’t be known whether the design was through intervention or deck-stacking.

The purpose of the story was to give motivation to the argument, which can be loosely set out as follows:
(1) Design by intervention and design by deck-stacking are empirically equivalent after-the-fact.
(2) There are cases of design in the natural world and these are observed after-the-fact.
(3) Therefore, cases of design in the natural world could have been accomplished by intervention or by deck-stacking, and there is no empirical way to know for sure.
(4) God usually works through natural means and, at any rate, science is based principally on empirical evidence.
(5) Therefore, cases of design in the natural world should be presumed to have been accomplished by natural means (at least in the field of science).

Implications:
If this argument works, then it doesn’t seem to leave much, if any, room within natural science for design inferences. However, it does have the advantage of allowing scientists to maintain justification for design beliefs that have been shown to have been accomplished by natural means. For example, suppose Behe believes the bacterial flagellum arose as a result of design. However, suppose he turns out to be wrong that there is no natural mechanism capable of accomplishing this. If the argument above works, he is still justified in his belief that it was designed.
One potential objection, at lest by Christians, to this argument will be that it leads to a sort of deism. This is simply untrue, for even if there are no empirical reasons to prefer intervention to deck-stacking, there may be Scriptural or theological reasons to prefer intervention. For example, the first creation of life or of humankind, due to their religious significance may be reasonably thought to have been accomplished by intervention.

I’d love to hear some people’s thoughts on this argument.

I recently became a contributor to the Florida Student Philosophy Blog, where I will cross-post some of my specifically philosophical thoughts, and my first post contained some of my thoughts on the graduate school application process, a very stressful thing for aspiring philosophers. You can check it out here.

After previously trying to read through Pascal’s ‘Pensées’ and then giving up, I decided to try again and have been very slowly (a couple pages per day in the morning) reading through it over the past few weeks. Although I don’t always find myself agreeing with him or fully understanding his arguments, I think there is a lot modern apologists can learn from his method and some of his thoughts. That being said, here are a few of my favorite so far (I’m not even yet halfway done):

12. Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is. Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature. Attractive because it promises true good.

108. What part of us feels pleasure? Is it our hand, our arm, our flesh, or our blood? It must obviously be something immaterial.

185. Faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them.

192. Knowing God without knowing our own wretchedness makes for pride. Knowing our own wretchedness without knowing God makes for despair. Knowing Jesus Christ strikes the balance because he shows us both God and our own wretchedness.

205. If all things have a single principle, a single end - all things by him, all things for him - true religion must then teach us to worship and to love him alone. But, as we find ourselves unable to worship what we do not know or to love anything but ourselves, the religion which teaches us these duties must also teach us about our inability and tell us the remedy as well. It teaches us that through one man all was lost and the bond broken between God and man, and that through one man the bond was restored.

219. Other religions, like those of the heathen, are more popular, for they consist in externals, but they are not for clever men. A purely intellectual religion would be more appropriate to the clever but would be no good for the people. The Christian religion alone is appropriate for all, being a blend of external and internal. It exalts the people inwardly, and humbles the proud outwardly, and is not perfect without both, for the people must understand the spirit of the letter while the clever must submit their spirit to the letter.

I will be away for a couple of weeks and will most likely not be able to blog during that time. Jeremy will, however, take up the slack. I’ll be back soon!

In my last post, I set up one of the proposed “contradictions” of Scripture. Stephen claims Abraham bought a particular plot of land while the Old Testament claims it was Jacob. Who was right? Doesn’t this destroy innerancy?

There is, in fact, a simple answer which requires no great exegetical stretch. It is perfectly possible that both Abraham and Jacob bought this same plot of land. It is highly possible that Jacob repurchased for his family that which Abraham had bought years before. A similar case concerning the well of Beersheba strongly supports this possibility. In this similar case, there are separate accounts describing how both Abraham and Isaac secured the land which contained the well. Genesis 21:27-30 tells how Abraham purchased from Abimelech the rights to the property upon which the well was dug. Apparently, this land was abandoned by Abraham and his family and was reclaimed by the inhabitants of the land. Genesis 26:17-31 tells of the deal made by Isaac with Abimelech many years later in order to have rights to this land once again. Here, then, is a clear case of the same piece of property being secured by both Abraham and one of his descendants.

Regarding Stephen’s reference to Abraham’s purchase of the land at Shechem, it is certainly reasonable that Stephen had knowledge of some oral tradition not contained in the Old Testament scriptures in which Abraham purchased this land. We know Abraham certainly stopped there and erected an altar (Gen 12:6-7). It would be logical for Abraham to purchase this land at that time. When Jacob arrived on the land many years later, it was necessary to repurchase the land that had been long abandoned.

I think this apparent contradiction, which in the end is easily explained, illustrates some important principles: The critic should not be too quick to cry, “Contradiction!”, and the believer should not panic or be troubled when the critic flaunts this or some other supposed contradiction in scripture. Most of the time there is a simple way of reconciling the “contradictory” passages. Although some do create difficult challenges, many times a straightforward harmonization is attainable, as seen in the example above. As in a court of law, a book’s testimony should be presumed truthful until proven otherwise. To approach Scripture in any other way would be to do a disservice to a book that has proven to be a remarkably reliable transmitter of historical events and places.

Recently, I spent a number of posts exploring one supposed contradiction in Scripture. In a much briefer manner, I thought I might illustrate how another supposed “contradiction” of Scripture might be understood. This one involves the sermon of Stephen in Acts chapter 7. Today, I will set up the problem.

Acts chapter 7 records the speech of Stephen to the Sanhedrin. Stephen, in this speech, provides a brief history of Israel, in verse 16 referring to the sons of Jacob…

… and they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.

It appears that Stephen made a historical gaffe in stating that Abraham had purchased this tomb from the sons of Hamor. Joshua 24:32 records the Old Testament version of the story:

As for the bones of Joseph, which the people of Israel brought up from Egypt, they buried them at Shechem, in the piece of land that Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces of money. It became an inheritance of the descendants of Joseph.

Critics of scriptural inerrancy point to Stephen’s supposed blunder as proof that the Bible is riddled with errors and contradictions. At first glance, one might agree with the critics that there is an obvious contradiction here. Who did buy the plot of land at Shechem? Is there any way to reconcile Stephen’s report with the clear declaration of the Old Testament account?

In my next post, I will answer this question.

According to this CNN Story, “God” has responded to a lawsuit filed by self-proclaimed agnostic Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers. Chambers filed suit…

seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty for making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing “widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants.”

The response claims that the defendent is immune from earthly laws and that the court lacks jurisdiction. It also claims that blaming God for evil misses an important point:

I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you.

This post attempts to answer a question raised in a post a couple of days ago (You will want to read that post before reading this one). What is one to make of these amazing similarities in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)? How can the parallels be explained? How can one resolve “the synoptic problem?”

There are actually a number of answers to these questions. The dominant view is known as the two-source hypothesis which claims that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, as well as an unknown source called Q (from the German Quelle meaning “source”). Another view is known as the two-gospel hypothesis which holds that Matthew was written first, Luke used Matthew as a source, and Mark was a digest of Matthew and Luke. A third view holds that Mark was first, but there was no Q. Luke, then, used Mark and Matthew. Finally, the Augustinian view asserts that Matthew was first, Mark used Matthew, and Luke used both Matthew and Mark. There are still other lesser held views.

A strong argument can be made for Markan priority. The other two gospels used most of what is in Mark, and there is no good explanation why Mark would omit so much of either if he used them as sources. Additionally, the parallel material in Matthew and Luke has a more polished style than in Mark, making it more likely that Mark was the source.

The existence of Q can also be reasonably supported. The close parallels in Matthew and Luke in the material common only to them imply either that they shared a common source (Q), or that one made use of the other as a source (if so, it is more likely that Luke used Matthew). If there was a Q, it might have been an oral tradition or a written document. At this time, we have no way of knowing.

An important question that many believers might ask concerning this synoptic problem is, “If the Bible is the inspired word of God, why would a writer need to use sources?” Certainly God could have brought about the gospels without the writers using sources, but a high view of inspiration does not require the absence of sources. Inspiration only requires the guidance of the Holy Spirit during the composition of the text. The “synoptic problem” is not a problem in this regard.

Perhaps, all of you may have seen this video clip before. I believe this is from a June 5 Republican presidential debate. Mike Huckabee was questioned regarding his beliefs on evolution and creation. Huckabee’s answer was quite clear and articulate. I’m impressed!

The so-called synoptic problem concerns the interrelationship between the first three gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These gospels are called synoptic gospels because they can be “viewed together” and can be seen to share a large amount of information.

Matthew contains 1068 verses, Luke 1149, and Mark 661. An impressive 540 verses of each are parallel. This common material has been called the “triple tradition.” Put another way, Matthew parallels 97% of the total words in Mark while Luke parallels 88% of those words. There are additionally about 90 verses which are parallel in Matthew and Mark which are not found in Luke. There are about 10 verses found in Mark and Luke which are not found in Matthew. Matthew and Luke share about 200 verses not found in Mark (known as the “double tradition”). Verses which have no parallel in any other gospel number about 20 in Mark, 300 in Matthew, and 500 in Luke. In those passages which are common, the Synoptics contain virtual verbatim agreement about 50% of the time. Matthew and Luke generally present events in the same order as Mark, although for those events not contained in Mark, there is more variation in order.

What is one to make of these amazing similarities? How can these parallels be explained? This is what is meant by “the synoptic problem.” There are actually a number of answers to these questions, some of which I will address in the next post.