http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPFi8k5IMK0
Sproul;
1) What are the main arguments for evolution? Evolution from a common ancestor best explains the fossil record. It explains why we don’t see humans buried in the same rock layers as a T-Rex, it explains why we see no vertebrate creatures before the Cambrian period and we do have vertebrate creatures afterwards. Evolution from a common ancestor best explains genetic similarities between species. It explains how two chromosomes from an ape are present as a fused pair in the human genome. Those just give two examples.
2) No Sproul, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. However life originated it is does not affect the truth or falsity of evolution, or descent with modification. Neither does evolution have anything to do with the Big Bang, with the exception that the Earth and the universe is old.
3) Micro and Macro-evolution is not a useful distinction in evolutionary theory. Often times there is more genetic variation within species than there is between species. This is because species are defined as any distinct group of creatures that can reproduce within itself. A different species develops then, when a group of creatures can no longer reproduce with another group.
4) No the question of life’s origins is not merely a question of history. If you are going to go that route you have to throw out the teleological argument, because it is based on theoretical physics which theorizes about how the universe began and developed over time and not just how it behaves today. Obviously history involves a variety of disciplines, as historians rely on scientific dating methods to figure out when an artifact is from. They use scholarly works from sociology and forensic methods from biology to analyze remains and ancient cultures.
Seriously Sproul don’t dip your fingers in so many pies. You haven’t done your homework here.
Hodges;
1) you need to read more works in the philosophy of science. Although many scientists believe that the universe is a closed system, theories such as evolution do not require such an assumption. Evolution does not imply naturalism any more than the theory of gravity or electricity does. To say that Evolution implies naturalism is like saying the Big Bang implies theism. Neither claim is true even though many people make them.
2) You raise an interesting point, how does God interact with a world dominated by natural processes? If weather patterns are responsible for tornadoes and various forces like gravity are responsible for the formation of galaxies then what is there left for God to do? The answer; everything. How? Because for one thing it is possible for something to have multiple explanations. For instance, take baking a cake. You can explain a baked cake by its dimensions, how it was cooked and prepared, the physics of how heat affects yeast etc. but you can also explain it through efficient causes such as someone wanted to bake a cake for their son’s birthday. In the same way we can ask for what reasons do galaxies form? Why do we feel pain? Or what causes the laws of physics to be the way they are? What prevents the universe from ceasing to exist? I could go on but I think I’ve made my point. God does not have to be directly involved in natural processes to be in control of all of nature in an intimate way, much like a mechanic does not have to manually run every part of a car to be considered in love with his car.
Ravi;
1) I agree with you on the bias of liberalism, but scientists reject ID for very good reasons. Take irreducible complexity for instance, as I’ve mentioned before it argues that for a system like the Bacterial Flagellum to function at all, all of its parts must be present. But this simply isn’t true, by taking a series of parts away it becomes a syringe to sting and poison enemies. Similarly contrary to Behe’s claims you do not need to have all the parts of a mouse trap for it to function as a mouse trap, you can have a 4 part, 3 part even 2 part mouse trap and it will still function. The claims of ID as well as the more extreme 6 day creationism are vacuous, the science simply isn’t there to back it up.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
What is an argument from ignorance?
Traditionally arguments from ignorance go something like this; there is no reason to suppose that P is false, therefore P must be true, or vice versa; whatever has not been proven true must be false. Arguments from ignorance are alleged to be used in many areas of natural theology. One classic example would be a common argument used by Christian theists that evolution can’t explain how life developed therefore God must have created life.
My problem is this, arguments from ignorance are simply easy to avoid. All the theist has to do to avoid using this argument is to change the nature of the claim and say that God is a better explanation of how life developed than evolution, thus we should believe God is the explanation over evolution. There certainly are other difficulties with this argument, but an argument from ignorance is not one of them.
“But…” the skeptic might retort, “how then do we explain why using aliens to explain U.F.O.’s is irrational?” A fair question to be sure. The answer may sound a bit odd at first, abandon the claim that there is no evidence that aliens exist. The fact is that aliens as an explanation does have explanatory power and as such the claim that aliens exist has evidence for it. However, the problem here is that there are multiple plausible explanations, U.F.O.’s could be explained by astroids, human developed experimental aircraft, or some unidentified natural phenomenon such as ball lightning. Because each of the explanations explain the same range of events and phenomena it is impossible, without further analysis, to argue that one explanation should be preferred over another.
The irony is that if we are to take the traditional view of “arguments from ignorance” which is so often used by skeptics and atheists, then we come to the conclusion that the atheist argument that because there is no evidence for God’s existence it is improbable that God exists commits this fallacy. As Carl Sagan noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” However, I don’t think the argument commits this fallacy. This is because atheists who use this argument are really arguing that if God existed we would expect to see more evidence of His existence. Thus the argument in its most effective form can be put in a simple syllogism;
1. If God exists there must be powerful physical or philosophical evidence of His existence.
2. There is no powerful physical or philosophical evidence of His existence.
3. Therefore God does not exist.
My problem is this, arguments from ignorance are simply easy to avoid. All the theist has to do to avoid using this argument is to change the nature of the claim and say that God is a better explanation of how life developed than evolution, thus we should believe God is the explanation over evolution. There certainly are other difficulties with this argument, but an argument from ignorance is not one of them.
“But…” the skeptic might retort, “how then do we explain why using aliens to explain U.F.O.’s is irrational?” A fair question to be sure. The answer may sound a bit odd at first, abandon the claim that there is no evidence that aliens exist. The fact is that aliens as an explanation does have explanatory power and as such the claim that aliens exist has evidence for it. However, the problem here is that there are multiple plausible explanations, U.F.O.’s could be explained by astroids, human developed experimental aircraft, or some unidentified natural phenomenon such as ball lightning. Because each of the explanations explain the same range of events and phenomena it is impossible, without further analysis, to argue that one explanation should be preferred over another.
The irony is that if we are to take the traditional view of “arguments from ignorance” which is so often used by skeptics and atheists, then we come to the conclusion that the atheist argument that because there is no evidence for God’s existence it is improbable that God exists commits this fallacy. As Carl Sagan noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” However, I don’t think the argument commits this fallacy. This is because atheists who use this argument are really arguing that if God existed we would expect to see more evidence of His existence. Thus the argument in its most effective form can be put in a simple syllogism;
1. If God exists there must be powerful physical or philosophical evidence of His existence.
2. There is no powerful physical or philosophical evidence of His existence.
3. Therefore God does not exist.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Does the Bible teach anti-intellectualism?
Thesis; The Bible (or at least parts of it) supports anti-intellectualism to some degree or another. Anti-intellectualism can be defined broadly as any hostile attitude towards learning, reason and open-mindedness and/or any attitude that has a tendency to undermine said processes/mental states.
Verses put forward in support of thesis;
1 Corianthians 1:18-20&27; 2:5
John 20:29
Romans 14:23
Hebrews 11:1
Psalms 14:1
Proverbs 3:5-6
This is a semi-comprehensive list that has been used and could be used in support of the claim that to believe the Bible teaches truth, one is committed to “check his brain at the door” or only be permitted to use reason to a limited extent.
Is faith irrational according to the Bible?
Hebrews 11:1 (ESV)
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
Before we begin we need to establish a few things about faith and how the authors of the New Testament are defining it. The word used for faith here and everywhere else in the N.T. is “pistis” which means “persuasion, credence, confidence in, trust, loyalty etc… (1)” this is a far cry from the modern definition of believing in something despite evidence to the contrary. Indeed the terms grace and faith (pistis) were often used in the ancient world to describe client-patron relationships, where the patron would give underserved favor (grace) to the client and the client would reciprocate by being loyal to and trusting (faith) the patron (2).
Given this background we can analyze Hebrews 11:1 by replacing faith with loyalty; "Now loyalty is the the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." So does this verse mean that our loyalty to God is our assurance and proof of God's existence and our hope for eternal life? Obviously not, the rest of the chapter records many prophets and leaders of the Old Testament who saw God and experience His power. So what does this verse mean by assurance and things unseen? Well the word for assurance used here is, "hupostasis" which as a noun refers to the concrete essence or abstract assurance (Strongs Greek/Hebrew Definitions, NT:5287). In addition the word hope, "elpizo" literally mean to expect so the first part of this verse can be understood as; our loyalty and trust in God is the essence of our expectations of God's continuing favor towards us. The second phrase, the evidence of things not seen, also makes sense given a client patron relationship where loyalty is a result or consequence of the grace given by the patron. This means that "things not seen" is better understood as the continual favor of God as our patron.
Having established that faith can be easily and comfortably defined as trust in the context of Hebrews 11:1 the question arises, is this trust rational or irrational?
Proverbs 3:5-6
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.”
If we are to trust in God and not our understanding does this not mean that we should only believe that which God has told us to be true and ignore our own reasonings?
Well no, first note we are dealing with proverbial literature here. Therefore, this passage should be read in the same way we read, “practice makes perfect”. It obviously isn’t true that mere practice of an activity will make you perfect at it, but it is true that practice is a necessary condition of such a goal. Similarly it isn’t true that we should ignore the fact that 2+2=4 because God hasn’t explicitly revealed it to us but trusting God when it comes to how to live our lives, particularly when it His wisdom comes in conflict with our own is a necessary condition of being a servant of God. Even then, such conflicts in ideas between us and God do not require us to just stop thinking and accept what God says, certainly it is within the realm of trust to seek answers as to where we went wrong and/or if we are misunderstanding God’s command (3).
But what about John 20:29?
"Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”’
So Jesus is speaking to Thomas here, who asked Jesus to show the holes in his hands and allow Thomas to feel them to know that they were real. Is Jesus, then, saying that those who desire evidence are less blessed than those who don’t? A few considerations have led me to question that interpretation.
For one thing, Thomas clearly had seen, observed and listened to quite a bit of evidence of the truth of Jesus’s claims before this. He had the testimony of 11 men whom he trusted dearly, he had seen Jesus perform many miracles, he even saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead. So perhaps Thomas was not being accused here of seeking evidence, but seeking excessive evidence.
In addition, as Jesus points out, converts of the future won’t have as much evidence as Thomas did. However, I would argue that they would have sufficient evidence given that they could confirm with witnesses of Jesus resurrection, what the apostles were claiming and they could even see the miracles of the apostles. Even further down the road philosophical arguments for God’s existence and the truth of Christianity would be developed, including new arguments for the resurrection. Thomas’s attitude, however, seems to be that if he can’t see or touch something, he can’t believe it to be true, leading him to treat Jesus like a puppy, performing tricks on command.
Lastly there is the word blessed. In the greek it is Makarios which has no english equivalent. The most accurate phrase that could be given to it, would perhaps be “a state of honor or contentment.” In this case, it seems Jesus is saying that those who don’t demand more evidence than is sufficient are more honorable than those like Thomas (4, also see Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes, p. 75).
Is all men’s wisdom and knowledge irrational according to the Bible?
1 Corinthians 1:18-20 (NIV)
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”
2. http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html
3. http://skipmoen.com/tag/proverbs-35-6/
4. http://www.tektonics.org/gk/john2029.html
5. http://www.tektonics.org/af/follywise.html
6. http://www.academia.edu/1489237/The_concept_of_Wisdom_in_the_Hebrew_Bible_-_a_philosophical_clarification
Verses put forward in support of thesis;
1 Corianthians 1:18-20&27; 2:5
John 20:29
Romans 14:23
Hebrews 11:1
Psalms 14:1
Proverbs 3:5-6
This is a semi-comprehensive list that has been used and could be used in support of the claim that to believe the Bible teaches truth, one is committed to “check his brain at the door” or only be permitted to use reason to a limited extent.
Is faith irrational according to the Bible?
Hebrews 11:1 (ESV)
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
Before we begin we need to establish a few things about faith and how the authors of the New Testament are defining it. The word used for faith here and everywhere else in the N.T. is “pistis” which means “persuasion, credence, confidence in, trust, loyalty etc… (1)” this is a far cry from the modern definition of believing in something despite evidence to the contrary. Indeed the terms grace and faith (pistis) were often used in the ancient world to describe client-patron relationships, where the patron would give underserved favor (grace) to the client and the client would reciprocate by being loyal to and trusting (faith) the patron (2).
Given this background we can analyze Hebrews 11:1 by replacing faith with loyalty; "Now loyalty is the the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." So does this verse mean that our loyalty to God is our assurance and proof of God's existence and our hope for eternal life? Obviously not, the rest of the chapter records many prophets and leaders of the Old Testament who saw God and experience His power. So what does this verse mean by assurance and things unseen? Well the word for assurance used here is, "hupostasis" which as a noun refers to the concrete essence or abstract assurance (Strongs Greek/Hebrew Definitions, NT:5287). In addition the word hope, "elpizo" literally mean to expect so the first part of this verse can be understood as; our loyalty and trust in God is the essence of our expectations of God's continuing favor towards us. The second phrase, the evidence of things not seen, also makes sense given a client patron relationship where loyalty is a result or consequence of the grace given by the patron. This means that "things not seen" is better understood as the continual favor of God as our patron.
Having established that faith can be easily and comfortably defined as trust in the context of Hebrews 11:1 the question arises, is this trust rational or irrational?
Proverbs 3:5-6
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.”
If we are to trust in God and not our understanding does this not mean that we should only believe that which God has told us to be true and ignore our own reasonings?
Well no, first note we are dealing with proverbial literature here. Therefore, this passage should be read in the same way we read, “practice makes perfect”. It obviously isn’t true that mere practice of an activity will make you perfect at it, but it is true that practice is a necessary condition of such a goal. Similarly it isn’t true that we should ignore the fact that 2+2=4 because God hasn’t explicitly revealed it to us but trusting God when it comes to how to live our lives, particularly when it His wisdom comes in conflict with our own is a necessary condition of being a servant of God. Even then, such conflicts in ideas between us and God do not require us to just stop thinking and accept what God says, certainly it is within the realm of trust to seek answers as to where we went wrong and/or if we are misunderstanding God’s command (3).
But what about John 20:29?
"Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”’
So Jesus is speaking to Thomas here, who asked Jesus to show the holes in his hands and allow Thomas to feel them to know that they were real. Is Jesus, then, saying that those who desire evidence are less blessed than those who don’t? A few considerations have led me to question that interpretation.
For one thing, Thomas clearly had seen, observed and listened to quite a bit of evidence of the truth of Jesus’s claims before this. He had the testimony of 11 men whom he trusted dearly, he had seen Jesus perform many miracles, he even saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead. So perhaps Thomas was not being accused here of seeking evidence, but seeking excessive evidence.
In addition, as Jesus points out, converts of the future won’t have as much evidence as Thomas did. However, I would argue that they would have sufficient evidence given that they could confirm with witnesses of Jesus resurrection, what the apostles were claiming and they could even see the miracles of the apostles. Even further down the road philosophical arguments for God’s existence and the truth of Christianity would be developed, including new arguments for the resurrection. Thomas’s attitude, however, seems to be that if he can’t see or touch something, he can’t believe it to be true, leading him to treat Jesus like a puppy, performing tricks on command.
Lastly there is the word blessed. In the greek it is Makarios which has no english equivalent. The most accurate phrase that could be given to it, would perhaps be “a state of honor or contentment.” In this case, it seems Jesus is saying that those who don’t demand more evidence than is sufficient are more honorable than those like Thomas (4, also see Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes, p. 75).
Is all men’s wisdom and knowledge irrational according to the Bible?
1 Corinthians 1:18-20 (NIV)
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”
At first glance this passage appears to be saying that 1 Christianity is irrational to a secular mind and 2 God is hostile to all the knowledge and wisdom humanity has attained. This interpretation, being heavily influenced by modern sentiments of secular society and human intelligence Is not representative of the topic being discussed in this passage. In 1 Corinthians 1 Paul is addressing a dissention of loyalty among his brothers and sisters in Christ between him and Apollos. This was a tradition of men in Corinth and elsewhere to declare exclusive loyalty to a single leader. Hence Paul paraphrases Isaiah 29:14 which speaks of God destroying such foolish traditions and pseudo-wisdom of men. Again given that it is a paraphrase of poetic/proverbial literature this can't be taken absolutely, God is not intending to destroy all of our scientific knowledge and make us like apes (5).
In regards to 1 additionally the concept of wisdom and foolishness has to do with moral and practical issues more than philosophy and head knowledge. Given this, 1 Corinthians 1:18 seems to be saying to the same people who practice such silly traditions of men as declaring loyalty to a single man the idea that someone died for them on the cross is moronic and stupid. Verse 18 does not then say that according to man-made philosophies and logic the cross is necessarily irrational. Its not even clear the v 18 commits a believer to hold that all non-believers see the cross as stupid and silly as again, proverbial literature is never meant to be taken in absolutes, despite the fact that many Christians desire to do so.
All this being said, a retort might rightly be given that the Hebrew conception of wisdom did relate a great deal to knowledge in a theoretical sense (aka head knowledge) even though such theoretical knowledge certainly doesn’t seem to be the main focus of the term. Ecclesiastes 8:16-17 is a good example of this sense in that it describes factual knowledge as wisdom, even the knowledge that one cannot know something. But as Jacobus Gericke points out the majority of the themes present in the Hebrew conception of wisdom revolve around practical or moral knowledge (6).
1 Corinthians 1:27
"but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong"
Much of what has been discussed above applies to this verse as well. What is implicit here is who Paul is speaking about, those who put traditions of men before the commands of God. Another point to make here is that Paul would not have the ideas of rhetoric or reasoning in mind when writing this verse. Most of Paul's writing is rhetoric and argumentation for various positions. Rather Paul is speaking about how people view things as foolish errantly or hastily. For example, the common assumption at the time that a divine man would never die such a shameful death on the cross. This assumption hardly seems obvious but is based on the further assumption that a divine being in the flesh would prioritize honor and not mercy. Thus even wisdom as factual knowledge often speaks of the traditions and assumptions of men and not their ability to use reason to come to logical conclusions or conclusions based on sound reasoning.
1 Corinthians 2:5
"so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.” (NIV)
This verse combines what we’ve discussed about faith and wisdom and thus we can apply what’s been said about those two concepts here by paraphrasing thusly; “so that your loyalty might not rest on human traditions, ideas and ways of living but on God’s power.” It is also important to add some context to this verse by quoting the verse before it; “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power.” This by itself casts doubt on any anti-rational interpretation as Paul was clearly interested in proving to his audience that what He taught was true.
Nevertheless, what does Paul mean when he says that our faith might not rest on human wisdom but God’s power? Given the popular rhetoric of the day it is plausible to suppose that Paul is speaking of wisdom here in the sense of merely what seems appealing or persuasive to men such as an impressive or inspirational speech. Thus Paul is telling his followers to not put their loyalty in men but in God as well as to not be persuaded by Paul's words but by the acts of God performed through Paul.
Conclusion; while this is by no means a complete scholarly exposition of these verses nor Biblical and ANE conceptions of wisdom and faith, it is clear from what has been discussed above that there is little evidence to support the idea that the Bible is anti-rational.
1. http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=692In regards to 1 additionally the concept of wisdom and foolishness has to do with moral and practical issues more than philosophy and head knowledge. Given this, 1 Corinthians 1:18 seems to be saying to the same people who practice such silly traditions of men as declaring loyalty to a single man the idea that someone died for them on the cross is moronic and stupid. Verse 18 does not then say that according to man-made philosophies and logic the cross is necessarily irrational. Its not even clear the v 18 commits a believer to hold that all non-believers see the cross as stupid and silly as again, proverbial literature is never meant to be taken in absolutes, despite the fact that many Christians desire to do so.
All this being said, a retort might rightly be given that the Hebrew conception of wisdom did relate a great deal to knowledge in a theoretical sense (aka head knowledge) even though such theoretical knowledge certainly doesn’t seem to be the main focus of the term. Ecclesiastes 8:16-17 is a good example of this sense in that it describes factual knowledge as wisdom, even the knowledge that one cannot know something. But as Jacobus Gericke points out the majority of the themes present in the Hebrew conception of wisdom revolve around practical or moral knowledge (6).
1 Corinthians 1:27
"but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong"
Much of what has been discussed above applies to this verse as well. What is implicit here is who Paul is speaking about, those who put traditions of men before the commands of God. Another point to make here is that Paul would not have the ideas of rhetoric or reasoning in mind when writing this verse. Most of Paul's writing is rhetoric and argumentation for various positions. Rather Paul is speaking about how people view things as foolish errantly or hastily. For example, the common assumption at the time that a divine man would never die such a shameful death on the cross. This assumption hardly seems obvious but is based on the further assumption that a divine being in the flesh would prioritize honor and not mercy. Thus even wisdom as factual knowledge often speaks of the traditions and assumptions of men and not their ability to use reason to come to logical conclusions or conclusions based on sound reasoning.
1 Corinthians 2:5
"so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.” (NIV)
This verse combines what we’ve discussed about faith and wisdom and thus we can apply what’s been said about those two concepts here by paraphrasing thusly; “so that your loyalty might not rest on human traditions, ideas and ways of living but on God’s power.” It is also important to add some context to this verse by quoting the verse before it; “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power.” This by itself casts doubt on any anti-rational interpretation as Paul was clearly interested in proving to his audience that what He taught was true.
Nevertheless, what does Paul mean when he says that our faith might not rest on human wisdom but God’s power? Given the popular rhetoric of the day it is plausible to suppose that Paul is speaking of wisdom here in the sense of merely what seems appealing or persuasive to men such as an impressive or inspirational speech. Thus Paul is telling his followers to not put their loyalty in men but in God as well as to not be persuaded by Paul's words but by the acts of God performed through Paul.
Conclusion; while this is by no means a complete scholarly exposition of these verses nor Biblical and ANE conceptions of wisdom and faith, it is clear from what has been discussed above that there is little evidence to support the idea that the Bible is anti-rational.
2. http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html
3. http://skipmoen.com/tag/proverbs-35-6/
4. http://www.tektonics.org/gk/john2029.html
5. http://www.tektonics.org/af/follywise.html
6. http://www.academia.edu/1489237/The_concept_of_Wisdom_in_the_Hebrew_Bible_-_a_philosophical_clarification
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Huffington Post on the book of Job;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-l-watts/abusive-theology-oklahoma_b_3322696.html?utm_hp_ref=religion
ugh, I’m not sure which is worse, Piper’s perspicuous presumption that God is uses tornados to punish the wicked or Joel Watts fundamentalist interpretations of scripture propounded under the guise of liberal Christianity.
First off there’s Piper who assumes, rather arrogantly, that God is yet again using the forces of nature to punish people. Of course Piper uses examples from scripture to justify this assumption. But examples of God displaying this sort of behavior doesn’t lead to the conclusion that God will continue punishing people in the same way, unless you assume, as Piper does, that God is predictable as He predicts every course of action and must do so according to His sovereign will. Nor does this justify the assertion that every natural disaster is an instance of God’s wrath (or that He has done so in any particular instance of a natural disaster).
Now for Joel Watt’s. This is the first I’ve read of Joel (as I don’t read Huff Post that often), but so far, I’m not impressed.
"There is serious doubt as to the originality of the prologue and the epilogue, as such genres as the protestations of the innocent are found in other literary groups of the time but absent the narrative structures.”
Clearly being the liberal “scholar” that he is Joel has chosen to not give any charity to the Biblical text and practically assume that a significant portion of Job has been added to the original text. As to Joel’s claim that Job’s epilogue and prologue were probably not in the original see the book; “Book of Job” by Andrew B. Davidson; here. In any case, Watts would do well to explain why a slight difference in genre between the beginning, end and body of Job lends serious doubt to their authenticity, as the entirety of his later points rests on this assumption.
"If you strip away Jewish and Christian interpretations along with the non-original narrative features of the Book of Job you are left with a story of a man who is struck with complete misery for no reason, afraid to cry out to his god because the same God may inflict more harm. What is more abusive than a God who only shows up to inflict more harm?”
Ok, first things first, Watt’s needs to make up his mind what he is going to argue. At one point he wants to critique Piper and conservative Christianity for believing in a sadistic God, but then to prove that he asks that we take away all context and Christian interpretations of Job to see that the God Job really believed in was abusive and evil. Yah that doesn’t work. If the author wants to show that Christians like Piper believe in an evil God and use Job as evidence of that assertion, then he needs to show how, on Piper’s interpretation, God is evil. The author could also cast doubt on the authenticity of the Bible by expounding on his argument that sections of Job are forgeries but trying to do both turns this article into an unfocused mess.
Furthermore, Joel points out that the idea that God would punish or put people through suffering at all demonstrates that Piper’s God has issues. This argument from outrage doesn’t hold much weight when emotions are put aside. Watt’s fails to question the underlying assumption here that the vast majority of people are innocent. Who says? By what standard? It seems to come to Watt’s secular conclusion we must assume first a secular and not a Christian standard of morality (as long as you don’t hurt others you shouldn’t be hurt yourself). If Watt’s wants to attack the Christian view of morality, fine, but he needs to do so first if his argument from suffering is going to hold any water.
Watt’s also mentions the classic “angry God only appeased through strict obedience” notion. Again this pulls on modern sentiments of being suspicious of authority. But Watt’s also fails to support the assumption that God has no right to punish us. He wants a God who lets us live the way we want to live but give us everything our hearts desire, and to be a cuddly teddy bearish sort of God. Any idea of God that carries any sense of justice is automatically cut down to a tyrannical dictator. Now I do agree with Watts that character’s like Piper do tend to think that they have a special connection to God through which they receive revelation and instruction and that this is unbiblical and downright silly, I also fail to see how, if Christians are right about everyone being corrupted towards wickedness by sin God would be unjust or evil in demanding strict obedience, especially when, according to Christians, that same God died for our sins and offers us grace to defeat our sin and obey Him fully. This applies both to Job and to Pastor’s like Piper.
Ultimately all Christians and non-Christians are forced to make a choice, is God a malevolent manipulator bent on sending as many people to hell as He can, or does He have our best interests at heart? Is it the case that we are evil and God is good? Or are we good and God is evil? A case can be made for both, yet many assume the former over the latter (I can’t imagine why).
Also see this article for a related critique of Job: http://christianthinktank.com/aecb.html
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Alpha and Omega Ministries on Molinism
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/?itemid=4456
"The reason for having "middle knowledge" in the Molinistic scheme of things is a view that what a creature would do in any given situation is neither a matter of God's choice nor a matter of absolute necessity. In other words, God cannot (according to the Molinist) decide what man would do in any given circumstance, he can simply decide whether or not to let the circumstance arise.”
No thats not what Molinism is. I have seen this mischaracterization time and time again, how many times do I have to say it? For one thing Molinism is not like scrabble, where there God is restricted to a single collection of letters where He logically could create other letters and use them but is cannot for the sake of our freedom. On Molinism, God could have decided and can decide what man will do in any circumstance. Molinism operates on the assumption that God has chosen to give human beings free will (in a libertarian sense). Furthermore, the counterfactuals of man’s free will that God knows about includes every possible free action done in any possible circumstance. God, as calvinists generally admit, cannot do the logically impossible, so He could not simply “create new tiles” according to Molinism.
"In Calvinism, God also decides what the tiles will be. So, one might reasonably conclude, in Calvinism God's omnipotence is more expansive than in Molinism, because it extends also to the free choices of free creatures. It seems as though the Molinist's only answer is to assert that if God determines what the creature's choices will be, then those choices aren't really free.”
Yet again, Molinism doesn’t require one to believe that God couldn’t have decided what we would do in a given situation, it only requires that one hold that God could not determine what we do and still give us freedom of the will as such a feat would be logically incoherent. Unless the author proposes that God can do the logically impossible, I fail to see how Calvinism presents God as “more omnipotent” than Molinism does. The only way I can think of is by denying libertarian free and soft-compatibilism and holding to hard compatibilism which would allow God to determine our every action and still give us freedom. If this is the case it is a minor point indeed, especially since, again, Calvinists assume that God in His sovereignty must have absolute control over every event, atom and agent in the universe.
“… ultimately it comes down to a question of whether a will - in order to be free - must have an ability that it never, ever uses - the ability to do the contrary. This rationale seems to be what drives the engine of Molinism, and while many people accept this rationale, you'll never find it in Scripture.”
This bit is confusing, the ability to commit or not commit an action can never be fully “used” in the sense of making the choice to do something and not do something at the same time, that would be incoherent. The whole point of having free will is to have the capacity to do one thing or another with the determining factor being the agents will, it is not, as Calvinists seem to presume to have a desire to do one thing or another, with the determining factor being whatever or whoever controls our desires.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Corporate Election;
here. It seems a corporate view of predestination solves the problems involved in Calvinism as well as Molinism. It maintains God’s sovereignty while allowing for libertarian free will.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Reformed Theology?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNe9n5me8sg
This video gives a good representation of at least some arguments for Calvinism and reformed thought. Two arguments common to this video, among many others will be dealt with below.
The first is given by Charles Spurgeon, who essentially argues that if we freely chose to be saved we would have something to boast about. We would have contributed something to our salvation. Now the traditional Arminian response, to my knowledge, has been that God gives us grace to choose. We cannot boast in our choosing God because God gave us that ability in the first place. But Spurgeon seems to attempt to respond to this by saying that if that is true, why is it that you responded positively to God’s calling but others did not? Something must have been better in you for you to choose God while others chose death. I am not convinced by this response however. If Arminians are right and God has given us the ability to choose Him or choose death as a part of His common grace, then it seems that it is not something in us that chooses God, but the grace in us that has allowed us to. Thus we are not better than someone who has failed to respond to God’s calling, as that choice was allotted to them by God as well. On top of this, making a choice as complex as choosing what to commit our lives to can hardly be a matter of boasting. When it comes to the intellect, a man may choose to be an atheist and be perfectly rational in doing so because the information, as he sees it, seems to be best explained by atheism. I could not boast, therefore that I am of a superior intellect than the atheist simply because it turned out that God exists and I, as a theist, was correct in my belief. Thus it seems that reformed theologians oversimplify the issue and straw man the Arminian position.
This leads me to a second argument, closely related to the first that if God had given us grace to freely choose Him or not, His grace would be ineffectual. This is put in the way that if God died for everyone’s sins, the fact that not everyone is saved is proof that Christ failed. This is a case of simple equivocation. To claim that God gave us grace to freely choose to accept Him as our savior, or not, does not require us to believe that God died for everyone’s sins in a strictly penal substitutionary manner. It could simply be that, as Mark Driscoll (among other theologians) argues, Christ died as a sacrifice that was sufficient for all, but effectual only for some and that Christ’s death allotted common grace for everyone to be able to choose to follow Him, or not. Thus this argument holds no water.
You’ll note from the second half of the vid, that John Piper repeatedly states that our fallen state requires God to force a change in us that immediately makes us changed. He puts as it took Christ dying on the cross to give us irresistible grace to save us. Ironically, this seems to fly in the face of Calvinists emphasis on God’s sovereignty, is Piper suggesting that God is incapable of making His grace resistible or giving us grace that allows us to choose between Him and death? If so, does this not put a severe restriction on God’s power and Lordship?
This video gives a good representation of at least some arguments for Calvinism and reformed thought. Two arguments common to this video, among many others will be dealt with below.
The first is given by Charles Spurgeon, who essentially argues that if we freely chose to be saved we would have something to boast about. We would have contributed something to our salvation. Now the traditional Arminian response, to my knowledge, has been that God gives us grace to choose. We cannot boast in our choosing God because God gave us that ability in the first place. But Spurgeon seems to attempt to respond to this by saying that if that is true, why is it that you responded positively to God’s calling but others did not? Something must have been better in you for you to choose God while others chose death. I am not convinced by this response however. If Arminians are right and God has given us the ability to choose Him or choose death as a part of His common grace, then it seems that it is not something in us that chooses God, but the grace in us that has allowed us to. Thus we are not better than someone who has failed to respond to God’s calling, as that choice was allotted to them by God as well. On top of this, making a choice as complex as choosing what to commit our lives to can hardly be a matter of boasting. When it comes to the intellect, a man may choose to be an atheist and be perfectly rational in doing so because the information, as he sees it, seems to be best explained by atheism. I could not boast, therefore that I am of a superior intellect than the atheist simply because it turned out that God exists and I, as a theist, was correct in my belief. Thus it seems that reformed theologians oversimplify the issue and straw man the Arminian position.
This leads me to a second argument, closely related to the first that if God had given us grace to freely choose Him or not, His grace would be ineffectual. This is put in the way that if God died for everyone’s sins, the fact that not everyone is saved is proof that Christ failed. This is a case of simple equivocation. To claim that God gave us grace to freely choose to accept Him as our savior, or not, does not require us to believe that God died for everyone’s sins in a strictly penal substitutionary manner. It could simply be that, as Mark Driscoll (among other theologians) argues, Christ died as a sacrifice that was sufficient for all, but effectual only for some and that Christ’s death allotted common grace for everyone to be able to choose to follow Him, or not. Thus this argument holds no water.
You’ll note from the second half of the vid, that John Piper repeatedly states that our fallen state requires God to force a change in us that immediately makes us changed. He puts as it took Christ dying on the cross to give us irresistible grace to save us. Ironically, this seems to fly in the face of Calvinists emphasis on God’s sovereignty, is Piper suggesting that God is incapable of making His grace resistible or giving us grace that allows us to choose between Him and death? If so, does this not put a severe restriction on God’s power and Lordship?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)