Postmodern philosophy

Postmodern philosophy claims that we never see reality as it actually is. The reason for this is because in order to see something we have to think about it. Supposedly, we think in “language.” Language is arbitrarily constructed by society, and contains all the biases of that society. And so anything we think about is molded by the biases of our culture, and thus we never see reality as it actually is.

Just to be clear, I think there’s a small kernel of truth to this, but mostly a lot of hooey.

From my non-favorite quasi-creedal statement:

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

…
Article XII.
…
WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to
spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in
the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific
hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the
teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII.
…
WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to
standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose.
We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such
as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or
spelling…

--------

How is it coherent to distinguish "irregularities" in spelling and grammar from errors in history and science? In other words, the Chicago Statement will allow for a Bible writer to misspell a word, but not to misquote a fact of history. Are these categorically different types of error? I don’t see how.

(Someone I know is studying Greek and Hebrew in seminary and vaguely claimed there may be a good answer for this because of something to do with ancient grammar, but he did not sound very confident when he said it.)

---
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html


(Sigh), the postmodernists on the left, the inerrantists on the right…

Also, you might wonder why I go on and on about these relatively obscure things. The reason is because I believe Prov. 23:7.

The Emergent Church and the Impossibility of Objectivity

It seems to me that the Emergent Church has embraced a serious philosophical mistake. That mistake is the post-modern notion that there is no such thing as objectivity.

Here are some links that, at length, will connect these dots:

Here, an Emergent pastor I know is Durham argues that objectivity is impossible (you have to scroll down a ways): http://timconder.typepad.com/

Here, a relatively famous professor discusses the same issue: http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/french-theory-in-america/?em&ex=1207713600&en=813ce2c4527f0de0&ei=5087%0A

And, here, Dallas Willard, refutes the idea that objectivity is impossible:

http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=4

To read all this would probably take at least an hour, but you can skim and get the gist. Or just take my word for it.

I think many Emergent Christians have, in good faith, bought the argument that objectivity is impossible, and their ministries are good-faith attempts to be Christian having accepted that argument. Nevertheless, if the underlying argument is erroneous, it's important not to build anything around it.

Faith and Science

It’s commonplace among intellectual Christians to assert that there’s no contradiction between faith and science; however, I’m not sure they actually believe this because there are still statements like the following from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

“We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.” http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

To make a statement like this, you have to be worried that there are incompatibilities between faith and science, namely between science and the flood and creation accounts.

Because it appears to me that many Evangelicals actually do believe there is a conflict between faith and science, I want to take a fresh stab at why there is not.

The reason is that science by definition cannot address the central occurrences of Christianity. Science only addresses those things that are readily demonstrable. So let’s start with the sine qua non of Christianity: the resurrection of Christ.

Science cannot address the Resurrection because the Resurrection is a miracle. Miracles are not falsifiable in labs; by definition, a miracle is something that happens outside the natural order of things. Science only deals with the natural order of things. It’s a classic case of apples and oranges.

The same is true of the Virgin Birth.

But what about the Flood and Creation? Science seems to speak to those matters, even contradicting Scripture. However, the way in which there is a supposed contradiction between science and the creation and flood accounts depends on an interpretation of the Scripture which is probably false, namely an overly literal interpretation.

To me, whatever the case may be with the literalness of the flood and creation, if the Resurrection happened, then my faith is on like Donkey Kong, and I’m a born-again, hymn singing, tongue speaking, Bible beating Christian.

And that is why faith and science don’t contradict.

I have three political principals, which I think are arguably “Christian” but can also be translated into secular speak:

I believe in Natural Law, that is, that people have intuitive access to the true nature of right and wrong, and our laws and policies should be shaped by this intuition about this Law.

I believe the positive law (the laws actually written down by our legislatures and judges) is a teacher and shapes the souls of people, leading them toward what is good and bad, right and wrong, and so the law should be made with it's teaching role in mind.

I believe coercive force should be used in the restraining evil and protecting the innocent.

Questions that science cannot answer:

What is the meaning of life?

What is my purpose as a human being?

What is the difference between right and wrong?

Are genocide, slavery, and adultery wrong?

The Psychological Approach to the Presidential Election

Here's my current primary criterion for the President: I have to like his personality.

By this, I mean that his personality must be suited to how I believe he'll perform in the job, not necessarily that I think he'd tell the best anecdotes at a dinner party.

I contrast this against strictly voting for someone based on an abstract alignment of his or her policy positions with mine.

The reason for this is philosophical. I believe in two contested philosophical positions: 1) I believe in Natural Law, and 2) I believe it the meaningful (if not perfect) ascertainability of Natural Law. As this applies to a President, what I believe is that most policy questions have right answers in an absolute (if approximate) sense. And so I believe the right kind of personality should be able to get to the right answers most of the time, or at least more often than the wrong type of personality.

However, what I have seen is that most politicians have personalities poorly suited for this process I've outlined of getting to the right answers. For example, President Bush has shown a strong tendency to be stubborn, unwilling to make thoughtful inquiry into matters, and unwilling listen to positions that contradict his own. I think a reasonable relationship can be seen between this and our entrance into the Iraq war (details of this are abundant, and I won't outline them here) (also, compare this to what I don't mean by personality, as it appears that President Bush would make a fairly amiable dinner guest).

This I why I currently prefer in order Sen. Obama, and then probably either Sen. Biden or Sen. McCain. (btw: can we perhaps refer to these men and women who are running for leader of the free world by their titles, giving them they honor they are due, as opposed to by their first names?). I've seen all of these men display remarkable candor and thoughtfulness, which for me are marks of good personalities for the pursuit of getting right answers to hard questions.

(update: I just reviewed Gov. Huckabees proposals for healthcare and taxes, and basically they strike me as ludicrous to the point he's fallen off my list of good candidate...so policy is relevant to disproving a certain candidate's ability to get to the right answers)

This isn't to say policy positions play no role in my thinking, but, for example, my currently policy positions are actually fairly well aligned with Gov. Romney's. However, Gov. Romney has shown me so far a lack of candor and thoughtfulness, not to mention notable changes of policy positions over the years that are consistent with his reputation for self-serving expediency, and so I don't trust him to implement policies I agree with. I voted for President Bush in 2000 based on our shared pro-life position (which he has stuck to); however I've learned during his tenure that issues will arise during a presidency that are outside the scope of the policy positions the candidate took during the election season--when the unknown arises, I want a certain type of person there to meet that challenge. And further, the fact that a person articulates a desire to bring about a certain policy has only a tenuous relationship with whether that policy will be implemented due to numerous circumstances outside that person's control.

Another factor which has some bearing on the issue is a candidate's experience. The best prior job I can imagine to prepare a person for being president is possibly the vice presidency. But the Vice President isn't running, and it's not clear to me that any senator, governor or former First Lady has a clear leg up on the other candidate in terms of relevant prior experience.

So, that's why my primary reason for favoring certain candidates is their personality which I perceive as thoughtful and truthful.

Go ahead and tell me if you think this is crazy. I'm sure at least one of you does.

The free-for-all Bible study

I'm pretty frustrated with a certain form of Bible study or small group which I will designate the "free-for-all" Bible study (I've heard it less charitably referred to as the "share your ignorance" Bible study). And essentially the mode of this study is that a passage is selected and everyone shows up and says whatever they want about it. Most of what is said is a long way from good interpretation of Scripture, but the point is that it's very democratic--everyone gets their say.

I'm tired of this because I feel nobody gets anything from it except for the chance to voice their opinions and see if they can't make them sound biblical, but, since it's such a prevalent model, I thought I'd put it out there to see if other people can articulate the value of this kind of Bible study.

Got Philosophy?

Both Christians and “Scientists”* need some.

Christians’ key philosophical mistake is in the area of epistemology (‘what can be known and how do we know it?’).

--The Mistake: basing their epistemology on the inerrancy of Scripture.

--The Problem: makes Christians too easy to dismiss.

--The Correction: realizing the case for Christ is stronger without the doctrine of inerrancy.

“Scientists’ ” key philosophical mistake is also in the area of epistemology.

--The Mistake: accepting an epistemology of “naturalism.” Naturalism is the idea that the only thing that’s real is what can be empirically observed.

--The Retort: “Like that could even possibly be known!”

--The Problem: it makes people irrationally dismiss God.

--The Correction: admitting that looking for God with a microscope is like looking for a rainbow with a stethescope.

* by "scientists," I mean people who co-opt science and misapply it to politics, religion, and ethics. Unfortunately this is a common practice, and some scientists are also "scientists." But, Jesus, I think, has no problemo with real science.

The Second Curse, mercy on a murder, the message of a non-literal Genesis

Cain’s punishment for killing Abel is that the ground will no longer yield its crops to him. It was bad enough that Man’s work was cursed, that he was to labor in pain and eat by the sweat of his brow. But now the ground will no longer produce anything at all for Cain, sweat or no. Furthermore, Cain will have no home, and he will be a restless wanderer.

The notion that exile from one’s home is the greatest punishment is attested to by Homer, Socrates, and Shakespeare—and before these men said it we see it here in Cain’s curse. Only a chapter ago, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden. This gets to be a pattern, as we will eventually see the Jews driven from Jerusalem. This is the cursed condition of human beings: we are not at home. Instead we are in a cursed world where even inanimate objects like the ground oppose us. Perhaps all fantasy for the past or the future, heaven or utopia, is rooted in this basic human condition of homelessness. We all ache for a place not like this one. One of our greatest quests in life is to find a “home.”

God is so merciful that even His curse of Cain, the first murderer, is accompanied is tinged by mercy. Cain despairs that as he wanders the earth, other people will kill him. But God proclaims that this shall not be allowed, and God gives Cain a protective mark. What kind of God has mercy on the first murderer? A God who sees human beings, even the most sinful, as his wayward children. God did not hesitate to kill an animal (3:21), but God protects the life of a human murderer.

From passages like these we can see that the Bible portrays human life as sacred. And it’s based on passages like these that may Christians to this day reject abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and the like.

Also, note another non-literal moment in Genesis. Cain is worried about others in the world who would kill him. Who are these others? It’s not clear, and to this point Genesis has not suggested there were any others. However, who these others are or where they came from is largely beside the point. And I use “non-literal” here loosely, only to suggest that Genesis does not ask us to read it like a news article or a passage from a modern history textbook. If it did expect this, then it is a very poorly written book—leaving such a gaping hole in its facts. But we know that it is not a poorly written book—therefore we should surmise that Genesis does not ask us to be too concerned about who the other people about whom Cain is worried, or where they came from. Genesis does not purport to be history or journalism in the modern sense. Rather, Genesis wants us to know about the fundamental human predicament: we are the creations of a good and loving God, but we are alienated from God by our sin.

The Curse: the Woman

God curses essential aspects of the Woman, her childbearing and her relationship with Man.

Woman is created with two purposes. She is a companion to Man (2:18), and she is to bear children (1:28). Both are cursed.

1- Her companionship with Man is cursed in that her desire will be for him, and he will rule over her. Men have mostly dominated women throughout history, politically and relationally. This curse particularly fits the crime because it was Woman who led Man astray, but now Man will lead her as a curse. Since it is a curse, women chafe against it, and history is replete with instances of struggle between the sexes.

Although the curse is the status quo, it shouldn’t be taken for the Christian ideal. The Gospel teaches post-curse living, and so Christian men should not abuse their natural dominance over women, but instead should serve them.

2- Woman's child bearing is cursed. Woman, along with man, was told to “be fruitful and multiply,” but women must bear the children. Now her work will be with pain, similarly to how the man’s work will be painful (1:16-17), and this parallels how God’s work in bringing about his children will be painful. Woman wanted to know good from evil, and now she will know the evil of pain.

The serpent’s craftiness (Genesis 3:1-5)

Three tactics of the serpent: 1) question the commandment of God, 2) deny the consequences of disobedience, 3) cast aspersions on the character of God.


The serpent is described as crafty, and his temptation of Woman shows this craftiness.
The serpent’s goal is to get the Woman to defy God and eat from the Tree. However, the serpent does not suggest this directly.

Tactic 1: question the commandment of God

The serpent questions the woman, like a lawyer, charting her understanding of the situation, and perhaps challenging whether God has issued a command at all

It is often suggested to us, either from an external source or even our own minds, that perhaps God did not issue a certain command at all. (“Did God really say ‘don’t look at attractive people’?” “Did God really say that it was wrong to be rich?” “By ‘thou shalt not steal,’ was God really thinking about office supplies or taking overly long lunches?”)

This questioning of the command seems to cause us to begin to deconstruct the commandment, as if it were up to us to judge the edicts of God. Also, stating the grounds for the commandment in this context opens up lines of attack (the serpent will next attack the rationale for the command), particularly if we’ve failed to know or understand the command.

What is the difference between a bad-faith deconstruction of a command and a good-faith inquiry into the nature of a command? Perhaps it is the motivation – if we begin questioning the command during temptation, that may be a sign of a bad-faith motive.

Tactic 2: deny the consequences of disobedience.

The second tactic, the undermining of the consequence of disobedience, is used perhaps even more frequently than the first tactic. The Woman says that if they eat of the tree they will die; the serpent denies this. (Notice that the line of attack was opened up by the initial questioning of the command – the woman explained that if they touched or ate from the tree they would die).

This is done today by believers and non-believers alike. From the non-believer, it often comes in the form of academic and popular criticism, and the most obvious current examples are in the realm of sexual activity, for example:

The command: sex must only occur in marriage. This is because it is good for people (for whatever reason, fill in the blank).

The counter-argument: “sex outside of biblical norms is not bad or harmful. In fact, it is good for you, and you should enjoy it, particularly if it is between two people who love each other.”

Similarly,

The command: lying is wrong. This is because (insert rationale).

Counter-argument: lying is actually often-times good for you and the person you lie to.

The underlying point is that these activities which are prohibited by God, are in fact good for you – and the underlying argument is that you should partake of the prohibited activity.

However, Christians often make this argument to themselves.

The command: do not sin. This is because of (name your negative consequence as described in the Bible).

Counter-argument: God will forgive your sin, so there will be no negative consequence.

However, we know that the Woman did die, even though it did not come to pass exactly as she may have expected.

Sometimes Christians even engage is offering reasons for a commandment, for example Christians will describe the hidden benefits of some of the stranger Levitical commands. We should be careful with this because the serpent may challenge our rationale, and we need to remember that the command is controlling, not the rationale.

Tactic 3: Cast aspersions on God’s motives.

Another tactic of the serpent is to cast aspersions on God’s motives for his command. ‘You will surely not die! The real reason for God’s command is that He knows you will become like him, knowing good from evil.’

This same statement is commonly recited now as ‘the reason for the commands of the church is that certain men wanted to keep everyone under their thumb.’ It was similarly stated that ‘Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere is having fun.’

The Woman should have kept in mind the benevolence of God as testified to by the goodness of the garden, and the goodness of God’s treatment of her and Man. Further, she appears to have had access to God, and she should have talked to him about it.

We similarly should keep in mind God’s goodness to us, the goodness of even a fallen creation, and the sacrifice of his Son when we’re tempted to doubt God’s goodness. We should also keep in mind that this is a common tactic of the serpent.

Summary

1) If you see any of these tactics, watch out! There may be a snake nearby.
2) Don’t answer the Devil’s questions; do theology with Christians, not the Devil.
3) Obey the command, regardless of the rationale.
4) Remember God’s goodness; don’t believe lies about his character.

Genesis 1:27-3:1: non-literal, beauty separate from functionality, man's purpose is to work, evil is a mystery

Creation account is non-literal

The Creation account indicates that its style is non-literal because in chapter 1, it is said that plant-life is created on the third day (1:11), but man is created on the sixth day (1:26, 31). But in chapter two, it says man was created before there was any plant-life (2:6-7).
The book of Genesis shows profound wisdom, and if such a story were written by a contemporary author we would call it ‘brilliant’ or ‘genius,’ so it is unlikely the writer was so inept and careless as to not notice this contradiction at the literal level. Instead, it is more likely that descriptions were not meant to be contrasted and interpreted in a literal manner.

Beauty, morality, and utility are separate, but go together.

Beauty and utility are separate, but go together. The trees of the LORD are both “pleasing to the eye” and “good for food.” Evolutionary biology currently teaches that humans find things “beautiful” because they are promote survival, they are ‘good for food,’ so to speak. The same argument is used regarding morality – that morality is only short-hand for what promotes survival for the species. (This view is the impetus for the continual stream of articles explaining why everything from gossip to men's taste for blondes to sexual activity to eating ice cream has an evolutionary survival value).

Moral and aesthetic judgments are similar because they are intuitive and unprovable. They relate to Natural Law, which points to God. The moral and ethical result of the evolutionary-biology view that beauty and morality are only misnomers or short-hand for utility is to make utility the chief good; beauty and morality are not independent values. Then a leap is made, which is that if something can be shown to be functional, it is morally acceptable. Similarly, moral and aesthetic judgments can be put aside as long as their survival-value can be extracted. The result of putting aside the moral and aesthetic judgment leads to sin and the casting aside of the compass, our intuitive recognition of Natural Law, that points to God.

The evolutionary-biology view, however, is not a good enough theory (in what way is a beautiful sunset good for survival?) The Genesis view, instead, offers a fuller and richer view: God makes things that are both beautiful and functional. He is not a narrow, one-dimensional God creating a craven, desperate universe where every living thing simply strives to survive and where there is no such thing as beauty but only utility. Instead, He is like any good craftsman who makes his goods both pleasing to the eye and useful for their user.

Man’s purpose is to work. (Gen. 2:5, 15).

Man is meant to live and work in community. (Gen. 2:18). Woman is portrayed as a distinctly suitable helper for man. After the other beasts and birds are considered as companions and helpers for man, they are found unsuitable, so with that in mind, God creates woman. This must be why it is so common for males and females to become partners.

Evil is both a mystery and a fact of life.

It is difficult not to ask, 'if in Genesis 1 God views all of creation as “very good” (1:31), how in Genesis 3 is there a crafty serpent who tempts Eve?' This is the well-known 'problem of pain.'

On one hand, it seems reasonable and common for humans to ask these questions. On the other, it is better to relegate the answers to these questions to the mysterious ways of God rather than to the lucidity of finite human reasoning. While Genesis purports to tell us what happened in the beginning, it does not purport to tell us everything that ever happened.

Further, human beings are probably incapable of understanding everything that ever happened – in fact, we don’t really even understand the things we claim to know: Who knows every fact of recorded history? Who fully understands quantum physics? Who fully understands himself or his best friend? No one, and yet these are fields of which we claim to have actual knowledge. What then of the deepest questions?

It is often smugly argued that ‘if God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful – then He would not have allowed for evil.’ But what do we humans know about omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or the orgin or nature of evil? All we know is the speculation of our finite minds. There is nothing wrong with the speculation of our finite minds, but it’s best to acknowledge that it does not constitute actual knowledge, and probably constitutes incomplete knowledge. To the extent we fail to understand the deepest questions regarding the ways of God, it is better to call the answer a mystery than to presume to know more than we do.

Evil is a fact of life in this world. Evil's mysterious arrival at our door-step is a common experience. Who has not started a day at peace and with the best of intentions and yet ended the day having committed sin and wondering how and why?

Genesis may not give every answer, but it gives a startlingly accurate description of life.

Genesis 1: the Bible’s authority, God’s sensibility of abundant life

Children and adults alike wonder at how things, good and bad, came to be. Why is the sky blue? Why do we fight wars? Why am I the way I am? While men grapple with these questions and put forth speculative answers, the Bible answers plainly and clearly: “In the beginning God…”

By this concise assertion, the Bible holds itself out as a primal authority on all things. The first assertions of the authority of the Bible did not come when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16 (…all scripture is God-breathed…). The Bible first asserts its authority in the first sentence of its first page when it purports to speak of the beginning of our existence. When one says anything, one implicitly claims authority to say it and the validity of what is said – or else one speaks nonsense. And the nature and extent of the authority is also implicitly asserted by nature of the thing said. If you say a small thing like “take a right to get to the park,” you assert a small knowledge and authority. If a large thing is said, like “the greatest commandment is to love the Lord,” then one implicitly asserts large authority. Here, the Bible presumes to speak on the primary chronological fact, which can only be based on the knowledge of someone who was there – or at least someone who knows someone who was there. By presuming to tell us what happened “in the beginning” the Bible implicitly asserts great authority.

The first character in the story is God. How important of a truth is that? Yet how often do we forget it. This life, this religion, this Bible, is primarily God’s story. Anyone who attempts to take the starring role other than Him is a usurper, and the story will be full of those. Also, those who attempt to take on the role of God, whether it’s the ego-maniacal Satan or simply you or me, will find the role far more difficult than we imagined, and that we don’t have the strength to carry the burden. The role of God is for God alone, and it is both right for us and good for us to keep that straight. Yet, despite this, God seems willing and eager to share the stage. It is not too difficult to imagine a story about God in which nothing of consequence is ever done by anyone other than God. I bet God did interesting things before any of us came around. Yet we know that this Bible God is more than full of stories of other people, even other people doing God’s work as his co-laborers. And even at the very beginning of the story, we’re about to be introduced to our fore-parents.

Note both from the pages of Genesis and also from a glance out your window the type of things God creates. He has a distinct style, wouldn’t you agree? If anyone has a favorite artist, he knows that each work of art by the singer, painter, writer, or whoever always bears the distinct marks of the maker, whether it’s the subject matter, the tone, the sensibility, etc. So, with God’s creation, for example, God’s inanimate works have a tendency toward the beautiful, the majestic, the spectacular, the bountiful. God is also notable as a creator for His range. Many artists can do only one thing well – but God can do the ocean and the desert, the jungle and the meadow. Yet, despite the range and the contrast, there is coherence. Also, in wildlife, one again notes both consistency and contrast, from the tiger to the duck. All of this probably speaks of God’s personality as one of vast range as well, since it is difficult to imagine a creator who is morbid making a light-hearted comedy or someone who is extremely cheerful and kind making a work of sadism. God is probably as fierce as a bear, strong as a mountain, playful as a puppy, and gentle as a breeze. Of course, one can go only so far with this level of interpretation – but nevertheless it generally seems plausible that the vast range of creation suggests the vast range of God’s personality.

When I consider the wondrous creation with all of its liveliness and beauty, I can’t help but find the view of the universe held by a fatalist or a determinist to be absurd. This is just my intuition, but to imagine that blind fate drove the universe to possess sea creatures that create pearls, sunsets that steal one’s breath, and flowers that thrill the eyes and the nose – it just seems really hard to believe. If a universe is really a grim machine running on ‘cause and effect’ and ‘survival of the fittest,’ it just seems you’d have a grim, ugly universe – perhaps full of gray, beastly monsters, or robots like those from the Matrix. But a Golden Retriever? Yes, I’ve heard that if you gave a group of monkeys an infinite amount of time to bang on type-writers they’d eventually write Hamlet…but if that’s the analogy that encapsulates your view of the universe, doesn’t it seem your thinking has perhaps gone to the circus?

(One scientist, Richard Dawkins, who is very hostile to Christianity compares Christians’ belief in God to a belief in a Spaghetti Monster. I’m saying, however, that the view of monkeys writing Hamlet is much more Spaghetti Monster-esque, than believing in a God who created the incomparable universe we live in.)

Also, notice the bounty of creation, the fertility. “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky. God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems...God blessed them and said ‘Be fruitful and multiply…’…God said, ‘Let the land produce living creatures…livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals…” Gen. 1:20-24.

Again, note God’s personality and consider it for application to your life. God creates abundant life. God could have been a minimalist, abstract painter. He could have left the earth formless and void. We often fear what God will do to our lives because we think he has something draconian and inhuman in mind. But look what God did at creation: His sensibility is abundant life.

Conversation with a materialist

This weekend I had a somewhat involved e-mail correspondence with the author of the article cited in the previous post. I told him about my concerns, and he was very cordial and generally gracious. However, he would not go so far as to concede any point. He felt that a rejection of dualism (any distinction between body/mind or soul) was uncontroversial, and was the consensus opinion of all the scholars he knew.

Maybe that's true. Maybe nobody he knows or respects thinks there is an immaterial aspect to a human being. So, I told him of several I knew of, but this did not seem to impress him. He was, however, very nice about it all, and said he considered my concerns "reasonable."

At one level, this was a humanizing discussion. I was reminded that someone I disagree with is a human being, just doing the best he can, and so I should avoid making him into a target for attack. However, it also validated all my concerns. He basically said science only concedes the existence and relevance of things that can be tested and proved, but that he also was not going to limit his statements to that jurisdiction - even though science can only deal with the testable, he was still going to use science to justify his value judgments (which are not testable). Yet, he didn't seem to acknowledge that this decision itself does not flow from something proveable, but rather is pragmatic and even dogmatic.

What's so dangerous about this type of scientist is that many people believe he is being objective, and he allows them to think this, but then speaks on his own beliefs, while still wearing his scientist hat, and fools people into thinking that his beliefs are objectively true. This is an abuse of trust; there are foxes in the hen house.

This type of scientist, unfortunately, appears to be the rule rather than the exception.

Bottom line: science can never tell you whether something is right or wrong, good or bad. Anyone who says otherwise is a heretic to both Science and Christianity.

Science is the devil...

...not really, but there's a big problem with scientists making dogmatic statements while pretending to make objective, "scientific" statements.

For example, in an article I recently read on child psychology (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom07/bloom07_index.html), the authors state that, and I paraphrase, 'dualism is mistaken, but children intuitively believe in it. So how do we get people to be more receptive to science?'

Dualism is the philosophical term used to describe, among other things, the idea that your soul and/or mind are different from your body. So by saying dualism is mistaken, they're clearly stating you do not have a soul.

However, there is a very live debate on this issue - even among professional philosophers and scientists.

I don't mind that these psychologists take a side on this debate, but I do feel that as scholars and honest people, they should point out when they've made a major assumption on one of the most significant issues in philosophy and science. A simple footnote would suffice.

If they don't want to admit that, then they should admit that what they are writing is agenda-driven propoganda, not truth-driven scholarship.

Biblical literalistic inerrancy is based on fear.

It’s not based on fear alone. There’s a positive side of the argument too, which essentially says that ‘if the Bible is inspired by God, then how can anything in it be wrong?’ That is actually an interesting idea, which I’m not addressing now.

But I’ve heard it consistently said that one of the main reasons to uphold inerrancy is that otherwise people will go off the deep end.

Here, I’ll argue that this fear is unjustified:

First, and obviously, people’s potential reaction to the idea that Scripture isn’t inerrant has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. (An interesting question is whether you would lie about it if you knew it would ruin their faith otherwise).

Second, I’ve seen plenty of good evangelicals make bad faith interpretations of Scripture to justify their behavior. Their belief in inerrancy did not reign them in. In fact, a lot of times Christians just do whatever they want without any pretense that the Bible, innerrant or not, justifies it.

Third, good-faith biblical interpretation is possible. The Spirit of truth and an open, honest, and humble heart lead people to a correct understanding of God, His word, His will, and His requirements. A hermeneutic does not save or sanctify. Who ever came to Christ because of a hermeneutic? Who ever grew in Christ or repented of any sin because they were finally convinced that the Bible was innerant and meant to be understood literally? Spiritual things happen by the power of the Holy Spirit through the various means, including the Bible, which He chooses.

In short, to the pure all things are pure. To the vile, all things are vile.

Why are Christians always explaining why Genesis must be taken literally,[1] but the Sermon on the Mount musn’t be.[2]?











[1] http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp
[2] E.g., http://members.datafast.net.au/sggram/f557.htm

Open letter to Jeff and people who find Christianity unpersuasive-

There are several important explanations for why sins, big and small, are a big deal to God. Some of them are highly theoretical and abstract; some of them are more common sensical. But before I try to tackle them, I’d like to start with explaining why I actually believe that all sins are a big deal to God.

Mostly I believe it because the Christian Bible tells me so. Basically, a number of years ago my life was a wreck. And what “saved” me was God, whom I understood to be speaking to me through church, other Christians, and the Bible. And so, the Bible has had my trust since before I ever thought about theology. Further, its never lost my trust either, as I’ve found it consistently to be the best and only believable description of reality as I know it.

That said, I understand this leaves the non-Christian at something of a loss. I’ve now started citing as epistemologically authoritative something you doesn’t accept as authoritative. In short, I’m saying that I believe this because I feel that God revealed it to me; the only thing that would really bridge this gap is if my God revealed it to you too. In the meantime, I’ll be happy to offer ideas that are more accessible – based on reason and intuition and the like. But I just wanted to offer this first, for honesty’s sake.

Next time, sin as nature, not deed…