For a long time theists have been asking naturalists (and indeed all atheists) what they can base morality on if there is no God. The argument is that without God or some other third party, morality descends into mere opinion; who’s to say if our culture’s values are right and another cultures values are wrong? Atheists often hear this as a personal attack on their moral values and point out that you can be “good without God”. This is objectively true and believers should be quick to acknowledge that unbelievers can be exceedingly good, and believers can be exceedingly bad. Christians for example, aren’t claiming to perfectly practice an objective morality, but claiming that they have one that they can point to, summed up in Jesus’ imperatives to love God and love your neighbour.
The failure of Christians to always love their neighbours gives unbelievers the valid objection that Christians don’t practice what they preach, but citing Old Testament commands to Israel gives unbelievers the invalid objection that the bible’s morality is barbaric. Jewish morality may be barbaric, but Christians are those who follow Christ, not the Old Testament law. Christian ethics are based on the life and teaching of Jesus, including his interpretation of the Old Testament law: to love God and love your neighbour. Taking commands from the Old Testament out of the context that Jesus gives them in the New Testament can form the basis of an objection against Jewish morality, but not against Christian morality. Claiming otherwise only betrays an ignorance of Christianity.
But the fact that unbelievers can be “good without God” is precisely the point that undermines naturalism. If we all got here by the strong eating the weak in evolution, then why do we cry out when the strong eat the weak in society? Richard Dawkins rightly asserts that we should not base our morality on Darwinian evolution. In a discussion on Q and A, Dawkins said: “I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It’s undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.”
Dawkins is to be commended for promoting a society that looks after the less fit rather than one that’s based on the survival of the fittest, but what logical reason does he have for doing so? If the survival of the fittest conditions us to strive to be the alpha male/female, then why are we (and especially the new atheists) so repulsed by the mentality that “might makes right”? By contrast, Friedrich Nietzsche based his philosophy on the idea that “God is dead”, and concluded that an ubermensch (alpha male) can and should rise up and dictate right and wrong to everyone else, “overcoming of traditional views on morality and justice that stem from the superstition beliefs still deeply rooted or related to the notion of God and Christianity.” If this is what evolution conditions us to do, what argument can naturalism offer to the next would be dictator who honestly believes that “might makes right”?
Evolution has often been used to explain human altruism, but it can only ever explain altruism within one’s tribe. Humans are not the only species to wage war, some species of chimpanzees also fight other tribes of the same species for resources that ensure their tribes survival. While evolution can explain why we would develop the desire to help those who are like us, and why we might fight those who are unlike us, it cannot also account for why we might have the desire to help those who are unlike us. Why do people feel sympathy when we see children who are unlike us in poverty in 3rd world countries? Why don’t we just shrug our shoulders knowing that the survival of the fittest means that the less fit won’t survive? Why don’t we rejoice that there will be more resources for our families and our tribe to thrive on? In short, why does human compassion go beyond the evolutionary good?
Christianity on the other hand, accounts for the compassion and morality of humanity (Romans 2:14-15) as well as our capacity for tremendous evil (Romans 3:9-18). The bible describes humanity as made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) but fallen (Genesis 3); crowned with glory and honour (Psalm 8) and yet deeply corrupt (Psalm 14). Unlike animals, people have an innate morality and are capable of great good, but we also display a deeply rooted selfishness that gives us a capacity for great evil. Christianity explains why unbelievers can be “good without God”, and also why believers can be the perpetrators of incredible evil; for the church is a hospital of sinners, not a museum of saints. Christians aren’t claiming to be morally superior, but that Jesus’ imperatives to love form an objective basis for morality.
I’m so glad that the compassion of theists and atheists alike goes beyond the evolutionary good. I’m also glad that so many atheists are keen to base their morality on human compassion and empathy. Unfortunately there is simply no reason to pursue compassion and empathy arising from philosophical naturalism, in fact, it’s quite the opposite. If there is no supernatural, and nature is red in tooth and claw, then what reason do we have to go against the natural? If we keep telling people that they’re animals, then they’re eventually going act like animals. How will abandoning the Christian values that have influenced western society do anything but that which Dawkins dreads; revert society back to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life?
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Sunday, April 7, 2013
The Origin of Life
Another area that theism wields explanatory power over atheism is the origin of life. Life is not eternal, it had a beginning. At some point something living came from something that was not living. While theism holds that life was created by God (the creator), atheism has struggled to explain the origin of life, how did the first living thing come from non-living material? This question is less avoidable than the origin of the universe, the universe could be eternal, periodically having a big crunch to the point of singularity followed by a big bang, but life could not have survived this. Life definitely had to have come from non-life. Similarly, the question of life from non-life can be pressed further than the miraculously convenient conditions for life, it's theoretically possible that there are (or have been) quadrillions of universes and we just happen to be in one where the constants are tuned to support life. But life still had to have begun at some point in the history universe, how?
At this point, a number of people confuse what is meant be "life"? Scientists have demonstrated how the proteins and amino acids necessary for DNA (the basic building blocks for life) could have come about naturally, and some think that this is enough. In debating with theists, atheists have been known to minimise the step from non-life to life as one small step in the chain from proteins to amino acid to DNA to a single cell to the most basic of bacteria and so on. However, the step from DNA to a single living cell (or a single celled organism) is no small step, and scientists have been trying to reproduce this step for decades with no success. According to the scientific definition, life grows and reproduces, as opposed to non-life (e.g. the building blocks of life) which neither grow nor reproduce. Immediately this poses a problem for philosophical naturalism, for it requires something that doesn't reproduce by definition, to produce something that does. How can non-life give birth to life, when only life is capable of giving birth to anything?
In an attempt to explain the origin of life without a creator, atheists have developed a theory called abiogenesis (a-bio-genesis = non-biological beginning). While this is a theory that assumes the origin of life from non-life, it's often held up as an argument against the theistic claim that God created life. Unfortunately abiogenesis only assumes that life came from non-life, it doesn't explain how life came from non-life. Abiogenesis is not an argument, it's an assumption, and worse, it's an assumption which we have no scientific evidence of. Until someone can create life from non-living material in a test tube, abiogenesis offers no explanatory power for how life began. It fails even to scratch the surface of explaining our observation of life in a universe which appears to have had a beginning without life. Hypotheses are accepted when they can explain our observations (without explaining any away), and rejected when they fail to explain our observations (or have to explain some away). This is simply a case where theism explains our observation of life in universe that didn't always have life, where atheism fails to do so.
At this point atheists often appeal for more time for science to discover how life could have come from non-life without a creator. This is a fair appeal, abiogenesis may have its Darwin who discovers how such a phenomenon could have come about naturally. However, this is precisely the point: an explanation for the origin of life is squarely within the realm of science, the theistic claim of creation scientifically falsifiable. Philosophical arguments for theism are often rejected for not being scientifically falsifiable (as if science were the only way that we can know things), but the theistic argument of the origin of life is one of the most scientifically falsifiable arguments there is. Scientists often prefer claims that are scientifically falsifiable, and here is a scientifically falsifiable claim for theism: the necessary origin of life requires supernatural intervention for life to come from non-life. Unlike the origin of the universe, this doesn't require one to be outside of space and time to observe the cause of space and time. Unlike the theory of the multiverse, this doesn't require one to be outside of our universe in order to observe other universes.
Science has been advancing on almost all possible fronts for decades. Scientific discoveries have increased our understanding of the universe a million fold. Science has enabled our generation to do things previous generations could scarcely imagine, and have insight into things that humanity had considered to be unknowable mysteries for thousands of years. The origin of life is an area that scientists have been trying to understand since the beginning of biology. While some biologists have mapped out the human genome, and others have cured countless diseases and conditions, those who have been working on the origin of life are yet to offer any scientific explanation for it. As a falsifiable claim, it's always possible that the supernatural creation of life will be falsified, but after decades of scientific attempts at asking how life came from non-life, we're still waiting for an answer.
At this point, a number of people confuse what is meant be "life"? Scientists have demonstrated how the proteins and amino acids necessary for DNA (the basic building blocks for life) could have come about naturally, and some think that this is enough. In debating with theists, atheists have been known to minimise the step from non-life to life as one small step in the chain from proteins to amino acid to DNA to a single cell to the most basic of bacteria and so on. However, the step from DNA to a single living cell (or a single celled organism) is no small step, and scientists have been trying to reproduce this step for decades with no success. According to the scientific definition, life grows and reproduces, as opposed to non-life (e.g. the building blocks of life) which neither grow nor reproduce. Immediately this poses a problem for philosophical naturalism, for it requires something that doesn't reproduce by definition, to produce something that does. How can non-life give birth to life, when only life is capable of giving birth to anything?
In an attempt to explain the origin of life without a creator, atheists have developed a theory called abiogenesis (a-bio-genesis = non-biological beginning). While this is a theory that assumes the origin of life from non-life, it's often held up as an argument against the theistic claim that God created life. Unfortunately abiogenesis only assumes that life came from non-life, it doesn't explain how life came from non-life. Abiogenesis is not an argument, it's an assumption, and worse, it's an assumption which we have no scientific evidence of. Until someone can create life from non-living material in a test tube, abiogenesis offers no explanatory power for how life began. It fails even to scratch the surface of explaining our observation of life in a universe which appears to have had a beginning without life. Hypotheses are accepted when they can explain our observations (without explaining any away), and rejected when they fail to explain our observations (or have to explain some away). This is simply a case where theism explains our observation of life in universe that didn't always have life, where atheism fails to do so.
At this point atheists often appeal for more time for science to discover how life could have come from non-life without a creator. This is a fair appeal, abiogenesis may have its Darwin who discovers how such a phenomenon could have come about naturally. However, this is precisely the point: an explanation for the origin of life is squarely within the realm of science, the theistic claim of creation scientifically falsifiable. Philosophical arguments for theism are often rejected for not being scientifically falsifiable (as if science were the only way that we can know things), but the theistic argument of the origin of life is one of the most scientifically falsifiable arguments there is. Scientists often prefer claims that are scientifically falsifiable, and here is a scientifically falsifiable claim for theism: the necessary origin of life requires supernatural intervention for life to come from non-life. Unlike the origin of the universe, this doesn't require one to be outside of space and time to observe the cause of space and time. Unlike the theory of the multiverse, this doesn't require one to be outside of our universe in order to observe other universes.
Science has been advancing on almost all possible fronts for decades. Scientific discoveries have increased our understanding of the universe a million fold. Science has enabled our generation to do things previous generations could scarcely imagine, and have insight into things that humanity had considered to be unknowable mysteries for thousands of years. The origin of life is an area that scientists have been trying to understand since the beginning of biology. While some biologists have mapped out the human genome, and others have cured countless diseases and conditions, those who have been working on the origin of life are yet to offer any scientific explanation for it. As a falsifiable claim, it's always possible that the supernatural creation of life will be falsified, but after decades of scientific attempts at asking how life came from non-life, we're still waiting for an answer.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
The Anthropic Principle
The latest argument against design came from Darwin, the argument is that evolution by natural selection can explain the variety and complexity of life on earth that we used to think necessitated an intelligent designer. While this argument works in biology since life can change with every new generation, no such argument exists in the area of physics. For some time now atheist scientists have been wrestling with the apparent design of the universal constants found in physics. Universal constants like the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the weight of protons, neutrons and electrons, and the magnitude of the strong and weak nuclear forces are all exactly what they need to be for life to exist. If they deviated by one part in a million, life would not be possible. For example, if the strong nuclear force changed by 0.0001% then six protons wouldn't combine to make a stable carbon atom (required for all carbon based life). Life exists on a knife edge of universal constants.
When confronted with the incredible improbability of the universe providing the exact conditions required for life, some confuse these universal conditions with biological conditions, arguing that we evolved to suit our environment rather than our environment being designed for us. A popular version of this confusion is known as puddle theory (from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe). Puddle theory draws an analogy of a puddle becoming aware that the hole he occupies fits him perfectly, and so he contemplates its designer as he evaporates in the afternoon sun. However, the anthropic principle (also known as the fine-tuning argument) isn't an argument about the improbability of life existing in certain environments, it's an argument about the improbability of life existing at all. It's not the fine-tuning of life that already exists, it's the fine tuning of universal constants that are required for life to exist. Life can adapt to fit a certain environment (like a puddle in a hole), but it can't adapt from non-existence to existence. Puddle theory is an analogy for evolution, but not the anthropic principle. For puddle theory to scratch the surface of the anthropic principle, the puddle would have to become aware of something like the hydrogen bond which causes hydrogen and oxygen, which are both gases at room temperature, to combine to become a liquid (water) at room temperature.
Some have tried to use the fact that life exists on a knife edge of universal constants as an argument against design. Conceding the narrowness of the conditions for life, they argue that if the universe was designed it was an extremely inefficient design (“some design” they say) since life does not exist in the vast majority of the universe, and has not existed for the vast majority of the history of the universe. Again, this is confusing the universal conditions that make life possible in the first place, with environmental conditions like temperature, gravity and an atmosphere. Leaving this aside, their argument is against a god who is either in a hurry, or needs to be efficient (presumably because creating a big universe would be difficult), or both. If God's purpose in creating the universe was to create life on earth (especially human kind), then it is a successful design. There's simply no reason why God would have to create a universe that was smaller or younger to achieve his purpose. If God is omnipotent then creating a vast universe is not difficult for him. Unless God is impatient there's no rush to create life straight after the big bang.
Apparently the strongest counter argument against the anthropic principle is the multiverse theory: that there are as many universes as there are combinations of universal constants and we just happen to be in one where the constants are what they need to be for life to exist. Most atheist scientists put this forward as if it doesn't require more faith than intelligent design. Some even claim to have evidence for other universes from satellite pictures and measurements, however they are claiming to observe a universe that exists outside of our universe, from observations that are made from within our universe. In order to observe other universes, you would have to somehow be outside of our universe, unless this was a closed universe with a window at the end that allows us to see what's outside of our universe.
What's more disturbing is the lack of science in this theory that's put forward as scientific. Science begins with observation from which hypotheses are made and then tested. The multiverse theory did not begin with observation, it was proposed as a theory which then led to a search for observation (which has not found anything). Furthermore, there is no scientific way to test the multiverse theory, no experiments to test the theory have even been proposed let alone carried out. Without any scientific beginning or any scientific way forward, this is nothing more than a philosophical speculation disguised as a scientific theory. If there was a single shred of evidence for the multiverse it would have the potential to be a scientific theory, but until then it remains a convoluted speculation (which should really be discarded by Occam's razor), proposed in order to justify the rejection of an intelligent designer whom atheists would prefer didn't exist.
When confronted with the incredible improbability of the universe providing the exact conditions required for life, some confuse these universal conditions with biological conditions, arguing that we evolved to suit our environment rather than our environment being designed for us. A popular version of this confusion is known as puddle theory (from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe). Puddle theory draws an analogy of a puddle becoming aware that the hole he occupies fits him perfectly, and so he contemplates its designer as he evaporates in the afternoon sun. However, the anthropic principle (also known as the fine-tuning argument) isn't an argument about the improbability of life existing in certain environments, it's an argument about the improbability of life existing at all. It's not the fine-tuning of life that already exists, it's the fine tuning of universal constants that are required for life to exist. Life can adapt to fit a certain environment (like a puddle in a hole), but it can't adapt from non-existence to existence. Puddle theory is an analogy for evolution, but not the anthropic principle. For puddle theory to scratch the surface of the anthropic principle, the puddle would have to become aware of something like the hydrogen bond which causes hydrogen and oxygen, which are both gases at room temperature, to combine to become a liquid (water) at room temperature.
Some have tried to use the fact that life exists on a knife edge of universal constants as an argument against design. Conceding the narrowness of the conditions for life, they argue that if the universe was designed it was an extremely inefficient design (“some design” they say) since life does not exist in the vast majority of the universe, and has not existed for the vast majority of the history of the universe. Again, this is confusing the universal conditions that make life possible in the first place, with environmental conditions like temperature, gravity and an atmosphere. Leaving this aside, their argument is against a god who is either in a hurry, or needs to be efficient (presumably because creating a big universe would be difficult), or both. If God's purpose in creating the universe was to create life on earth (especially human kind), then it is a successful design. There's simply no reason why God would have to create a universe that was smaller or younger to achieve his purpose. If God is omnipotent then creating a vast universe is not difficult for him. Unless God is impatient there's no rush to create life straight after the big bang.
Apparently the strongest counter argument against the anthropic principle is the multiverse theory: that there are as many universes as there are combinations of universal constants and we just happen to be in one where the constants are what they need to be for life to exist. Most atheist scientists put this forward as if it doesn't require more faith than intelligent design. Some even claim to have evidence for other universes from satellite pictures and measurements, however they are claiming to observe a universe that exists outside of our universe, from observations that are made from within our universe. In order to observe other universes, you would have to somehow be outside of our universe, unless this was a closed universe with a window at the end that allows us to see what's outside of our universe.
What's more disturbing is the lack of science in this theory that's put forward as scientific. Science begins with observation from which hypotheses are made and then tested. The multiverse theory did not begin with observation, it was proposed as a theory which then led to a search for observation (which has not found anything). Furthermore, there is no scientific way to test the multiverse theory, no experiments to test the theory have even been proposed let alone carried out. Without any scientific beginning or any scientific way forward, this is nothing more than a philosophical speculation disguised as a scientific theory. If there was a single shred of evidence for the multiverse it would have the potential to be a scientific theory, but until then it remains a convoluted speculation (which should really be discarded by Occam's razor), proposed in order to justify the rejection of an intelligent designer whom atheists would prefer didn't exist.
Friday, February 15, 2013
The Cosmological Argument
There have been many subtle shifts in the ongoing debate of God's existence, but few that have shifted from one extreme to the other as subtly as the cosmological argument. The argument is straightforward, if there was nothing before the universe began, then how could the universe (something) have come from nothing? The very existence of the universe necessitates there to be something beyond the universe which brought it into being. If there is nothing beyond the natural universe, what could have possibly caused the universe to come about naturally?
For centuries the standard atheist rebuttal was that the universe was eternal, it has no beginning and therefore doesn't require a cause or a creator. This view of the universe (known as Aristotelian cosmology) was developed by Aristotle in the 4th century B.C. and was widely held by those who don't believe in a creator. It was only in the 20th century the big bang theory was proposed, initially by theists (especially Georges Lemaitre) and resisted by atheists because it meant that the universe had a beginning. Up until that time, atheists had argued against the creation account in Genesis 1 by claiming that the universe had always existed.
Recent decades has seen a subtle but dramatic shift among atheists about the big bang. Far from being something to defend against, some atheists are trying to use the big bang theory as a weapon against theists in the ongoing debate on God's existence. It's often assumed that Christians don't know anything about the big bang theory, and even that the big bang theory contradicts the creation account of Genesis 1, arguing that one has to choose between the scientific explanation of the big bang theory and the theological explanation of creation. However this is to confuse the agency of the origin of the universe with its mechanism. It's like asking “what created the Ford Galaxy, Henry Ford (the agent) or the Ford production line (the mechanism), CHOOSE!”
A recent attempt has been made to explain the origin of universe in purely naturalistic terms by Lawrence Krauss in “A universe from nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing”. He argues that since quantum fluctuations can bring about positive and negative charges that immediately cancel each out (which we can observe when one is pulled into a black hole before it can cancel the other one out), then quantum fluctuations could have brought about the critical mass required to trigger the big bang. His argument has been criticised for his use of the word nothing, he isn't really talking about a universe from nothing, but a universe from quantum fluctuations. His understanding of the big bang is not the beginning of space and time, but rather the beginning of matter within a space and time that has always existed. Though Krauss would deny it, there is a sense in which he is going back to the former atheist position of denying that the natural universe had an absolute beginning, for Krauss; space, time and quantum fluctuation have always existed.
Similar arguments have been mounted by atheists using speculations of what was before the big bang. To be fair, there is no real way around this, in order to develop a theory for what caused the big bang you cannot avoid making some assumptions about what, if anything, existed before the big bang. Physicists postulate that the universe as we know it has been expanding from a “point of singularity”, but no one knows with any degree of certainty what there was before this point. It's possible that a prior universe had a big crush to the point of singularity followed by the big bang of our universe. Unfortunately, as physicists unanimously declare, no information passes through the point of singularity: scientific inquiry doesn't have access to any information before the big bang. Krauss' assumption of quantum fluctuations before the big bang can only ever be a hypothetical speculation without any actual evidence.
Richard Dawkins often gives a different reply, but one that's equally destroyed by the fact that no information passes through the point of singularity. Dawkins suggests that Darwin has solved the more difficult problem of the complexity of biology, and it's only a matter of time before physics has its Darwin who solves the problem of the origin of the universe. However, if no information passes through the point of singularity, then there's no way that anyone can develop a scientific theory based on evidence about the origin of the universe. Scientific inquiry that's carried out from within the known universe cannot step outside the universe to observe its beginning. We cannot come to any real understanding about the origin of the universe by scientific observation, the only way we could ever come to such understanding is by special revelation.
For centuries the standard atheist rebuttal was that the universe was eternal, it has no beginning and therefore doesn't require a cause or a creator. This view of the universe (known as Aristotelian cosmology) was developed by Aristotle in the 4th century B.C. and was widely held by those who don't believe in a creator. It was only in the 20th century the big bang theory was proposed, initially by theists (especially Georges Lemaitre) and resisted by atheists because it meant that the universe had a beginning. Up until that time, atheists had argued against the creation account in Genesis 1 by claiming that the universe had always existed.
Recent decades has seen a subtle but dramatic shift among atheists about the big bang. Far from being something to defend against, some atheists are trying to use the big bang theory as a weapon against theists in the ongoing debate on God's existence. It's often assumed that Christians don't know anything about the big bang theory, and even that the big bang theory contradicts the creation account of Genesis 1, arguing that one has to choose between the scientific explanation of the big bang theory and the theological explanation of creation. However this is to confuse the agency of the origin of the universe with its mechanism. It's like asking “what created the Ford Galaxy, Henry Ford (the agent) or the Ford production line (the mechanism), CHOOSE!”
A recent attempt has been made to explain the origin of universe in purely naturalistic terms by Lawrence Krauss in “A universe from nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing”. He argues that since quantum fluctuations can bring about positive and negative charges that immediately cancel each out (which we can observe when one is pulled into a black hole before it can cancel the other one out), then quantum fluctuations could have brought about the critical mass required to trigger the big bang. His argument has been criticised for his use of the word nothing, he isn't really talking about a universe from nothing, but a universe from quantum fluctuations. His understanding of the big bang is not the beginning of space and time, but rather the beginning of matter within a space and time that has always existed. Though Krauss would deny it, there is a sense in which he is going back to the former atheist position of denying that the natural universe had an absolute beginning, for Krauss; space, time and quantum fluctuation have always existed.
Similar arguments have been mounted by atheists using speculations of what was before the big bang. To be fair, there is no real way around this, in order to develop a theory for what caused the big bang you cannot avoid making some assumptions about what, if anything, existed before the big bang. Physicists postulate that the universe as we know it has been expanding from a “point of singularity”, but no one knows with any degree of certainty what there was before this point. It's possible that a prior universe had a big crush to the point of singularity followed by the big bang of our universe. Unfortunately, as physicists unanimously declare, no information passes through the point of singularity: scientific inquiry doesn't have access to any information before the big bang. Krauss' assumption of quantum fluctuations before the big bang can only ever be a hypothetical speculation without any actual evidence.
Richard Dawkins often gives a different reply, but one that's equally destroyed by the fact that no information passes through the point of singularity. Dawkins suggests that Darwin has solved the more difficult problem of the complexity of biology, and it's only a matter of time before physics has its Darwin who solves the problem of the origin of the universe. However, if no information passes through the point of singularity, then there's no way that anyone can develop a scientific theory based on evidence about the origin of the universe. Scientific inquiry that's carried out from within the known universe cannot step outside the universe to observe its beginning. We cannot come to any real understanding about the origin of the universe by scientific observation, the only way we could ever come to such understanding is by special revelation.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
The Burden of Proof
It’s recently become common for atheists engaging with believers to try and escape the burden of proof for atheism while demanding that the theistic claim that God exists carries the burden of proof and should not be asserted unless it can meet this burden. The argument goes that if someone claimed that some ridiculous creature like a unicorn on mars or a celestial teapot existed, we would not believe them simply because we can’t prove that it doesn’t exist. If they want to claim that it does exist, they have the burden of proving that it does exist. They then say that it’s the same with God: the burden of proof doesn’t lie with those claiming that he doesn’t exist, but it does lie with those who claim that he does exist.
The kernel of truth in this is that the burden of proof does indeed lie with those who claim that God exists. If anyone wants to make any kind of truth claim then they carry the burden of proof for their claim. A claim that has to be believed without any evidence is seldom believed, truth claims do not have to be accepted by default. Truth claims, especially ones that require action, should be able to be justified and a healthy scepticism about truth claims keeps us from naivety and gullibility.
The absurdity of atheists trying to escape the burden of proof lies in the assumption that if God’s existence cannot be proved, then his non-existence wins by default. As if atheism is the default position if a belief in God cannot be justified. The atheist is here demanding that his atheism, which has clearly forfeited the neutrality of agnosticism, be treated as if it was the neutral position that agnosticism is. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. Just as theists carry the burden of proof for asserting that God exists, atheists also carry the burden of proof for asserting that God doesn’t exist. Only agnosticism escapes the burden of proof for the simple reason that agnosticism doesn’t make a claim.
Atheists who try to escape the burden of proof usually (and sometimes deliberately) confuse atheism with agnosticism. While agnostics don’t believe that God exists or that he doesn’t exist, atheists make a definitive claim that God doesn’t exist, and then in order to escape the burden of proof, pretend that they’re not making a claim. This is move is often made because of their dislike of the word “believe”. While theists believe that God exists and agnostics don’t believe either way, atheists believe that God doesn’t exist, but can seldom admit that they have a belief about God (even if it is that he doesn’t exist). They prefer to speak about their lack of belief, again trying to enjoy the benefits of agnosticism, but this is to confuse the negative with the non-positive. The difference between negative numbers and non-positive numbers is the neutral number 0. If theism is a positive belief in God, atheism is a negative belief in God and agnosticism is the neutral position in the middle (the belief in 0 claims about God’s existence). Agnosticism is the default position which should win by default if either theism or atheism is rejected.
This epistemological spectrum from atheism to theism with the neutral middle of agnosticism is made clear by Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion (page 50-51). Dawkins has a scale from 1 (strong theism) to 7 (strong atheism) with the neutral middle of 4 being truly agnostic. This is a very helpful epistemological scale to point atheists to in this kind of discussion, not just because Dawkins helpfully draws the battle lines in the sand, but because most atheists respect Dawkins and will listen to an argument that’s found in The God Delusion.
Finally, something that clearly sets God apart from ridiculous creatures like unicorns on mars or a celestial teapot is the explanatory power of the God hypothesis. If a celestial teapot could explain our observance of space then it might be accepted by some, but it’s rejected by all because its existence explains nothing. The hypothesis that God exists explains the beginning of the universe, the fine tuning of the universal constants for life, the beginning of life from non-life, the fact that human compassion goes beyond the evolutionary good, and the resurrection shaped hole in history. Hypotheses are accepted when they explain what we observe. Alien unicorns and celestial teapots can be easily rejected because they have no explanatory power whatsoever. But while the existence of God cannot be scientifically proved, it would certainly explain a lot.
The kernel of truth in this is that the burden of proof does indeed lie with those who claim that God exists. If anyone wants to make any kind of truth claim then they carry the burden of proof for their claim. A claim that has to be believed without any evidence is seldom believed, truth claims do not have to be accepted by default. Truth claims, especially ones that require action, should be able to be justified and a healthy scepticism about truth claims keeps us from naivety and gullibility.
The absurdity of atheists trying to escape the burden of proof lies in the assumption that if God’s existence cannot be proved, then his non-existence wins by default. As if atheism is the default position if a belief in God cannot be justified. The atheist is here demanding that his atheism, which has clearly forfeited the neutrality of agnosticism, be treated as if it was the neutral position that agnosticism is. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. Just as theists carry the burden of proof for asserting that God exists, atheists also carry the burden of proof for asserting that God doesn’t exist. Only agnosticism escapes the burden of proof for the simple reason that agnosticism doesn’t make a claim.
Atheists who try to escape the burden of proof usually (and sometimes deliberately) confuse atheism with agnosticism. While agnostics don’t believe that God exists or that he doesn’t exist, atheists make a definitive claim that God doesn’t exist, and then in order to escape the burden of proof, pretend that they’re not making a claim. This is move is often made because of their dislike of the word “believe”. While theists believe that God exists and agnostics don’t believe either way, atheists believe that God doesn’t exist, but can seldom admit that they have a belief about God (even if it is that he doesn’t exist). They prefer to speak about their lack of belief, again trying to enjoy the benefits of agnosticism, but this is to confuse the negative with the non-positive. The difference between negative numbers and non-positive numbers is the neutral number 0. If theism is a positive belief in God, atheism is a negative belief in God and agnosticism is the neutral position in the middle (the belief in 0 claims about God’s existence). Agnosticism is the default position which should win by default if either theism or atheism is rejected.
This epistemological spectrum from atheism to theism with the neutral middle of agnosticism is made clear by Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion (page 50-51). Dawkins has a scale from 1 (strong theism) to 7 (strong atheism) with the neutral middle of 4 being truly agnostic. This is a very helpful epistemological scale to point atheists to in this kind of discussion, not just because Dawkins helpfully draws the battle lines in the sand, but because most atheists respect Dawkins and will listen to an argument that’s found in The God Delusion.
Finally, something that clearly sets God apart from ridiculous creatures like unicorns on mars or a celestial teapot is the explanatory power of the God hypothesis. If a celestial teapot could explain our observance of space then it might be accepted by some, but it’s rejected by all because its existence explains nothing. The hypothesis that God exists explains the beginning of the universe, the fine tuning of the universal constants for life, the beginning of life from non-life, the fact that human compassion goes beyond the evolutionary good, and the resurrection shaped hole in history. Hypotheses are accepted when they explain what we observe. Alien unicorns and celestial teapots can be easily rejected because they have no explanatory power whatsoever. But while the existence of God cannot be scientifically proved, it would certainly explain a lot.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Defending God's Sovereignty
In an attempt to preserve the human freedom required for people to be responsible, some have let go of the idea that God is sovereign, to varying degrees. Pelagius first promoted a strong view of free will to oppose the idea of God’s sovereignty in both salvation and good works. His opponent Augustine, demonstrated that the bible teaches that God is sovereign, especially in salvation, but the Roman Catholic church adopted a fairly weak view of God’s sovereignty in our good works. Pelagius’ view was resurrected by Arminius a thousand years later and opposed by Calvin and the early reformers. And the Roman Catholic church’s view of good works has recently be revitalised in reformed circles by the new perspective. Against Pelagius and Arminius, Augustine and Calvin argued that God saves us and keeps us. The Roman Catholic church and the new perspective affirm that it is God who saves us, but teach that it is up to us to keep ourselves in the faith.
Open theism tries to bridge the gap arguing that God is like a brilliant chess player. People are also players in the game, but God is so good that he always wins, using even his opponents moves to achieve his desired outcome. This incorporates the idea of middle knowledge: that God knows everything that there is to know, but he can’t know our choices until we make them. If our choices were known in advance, they wouldn’t be real choices. This is a logical outworking of the philosophical idea that foreknowledge contradicts freedom. If it’s possible to have foreknowledge of the future, then it’s not possible to exercise any freedom that would change that future. Therefore, if God is sovereign, then people have no choice but to do his sovereign will. Ultimately, this is another exaltation of free will at the expense of God’s sovereignty.
What exactly is at stake here? Advocates of free will argue that exalting God’s sovereignty at the expense of free will leads to a hyper-Calvinism where we don’t have to do anything because God is sovereign over everything. Calvinists argue that exalting free will at the expense of God’s sovereignty leads to a theology of salvation by works which denies God’s grace, for we are “chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works, if it were, grace would no longer be grace” (Romans 11:5-6). In the end it is a battle of wills. Is God sovereign in his will for salvation or do we exercise free will in becoming a Christian? Do we persevere as Christians because it is God’s will, or is it our will to persevere? Is human history the result of God’s sovereign will, or the result of the countless human choices that have shaped human history?
At the heart of the tension is the demand that we draw the battle lines between God’s will and our will. We demand that our will be free such that God cannot be sovereign over it, or that God’s will be sovereign such that people don’t have any freedom under it. However this is a false dichotomy that stems from an overly simplistic understanding of God’s sovereignty that’s bound by the limits of human sovereignty. Two people’s choices can easily be in a zero-sum conflict (tug of war); the more a certain decision is one person’s choice, the less it is another’s. But God’s choices and ours are not in the same “either/or” relationship that our choices are in with another person’s. God’s choices are put into effect by the choices of people, God’s will is achieved through human will, not instead of human will (Genesis 50:20, Acts 2:23).
The question then becomes, how does God’s will transcend our will? What is the relationship between God’s choices and ours? The bible describes people as free to chose and accountable for their choices (Deuteronomy 30:11-20), but compared to God’s freedom, people are like tools in the hands of the God who wields us (Isaiah 10:15). People have real agency, but when compared to God’s agency, people’s actions appear to be a mechanism for God’s agency. By analogy, computers make “decisions” all the time. A computer’s processor decides which instructions to execute and when, and its decisions sometimes depend on the “decisions” of other computer processors. The decisions of two CPU’s can easily be in a zero-sum conflict, for example, when it comes to the order and priority of sending and receiving information across a network, the more its one CPU’s decision, the less it is another’s. But when a computer’s ability to make decisions is compared to ours, it becomes negligible. People have infinity more freedom than computers, but God has infinitely more freedom than people.
If God is a chess player, then he is not playing against us, he is moving us, his pieces, to the eschatological end of human history. With sin and death already dealt with on the cross, the final move to make is to send his son a second time to bring the kingdom of God into completion. God has “mate in one”, but he continues to turn pawns into queens, or more accurately (and this is where the analogy breaks down), to turn black pieces into white pieces. It’s not as though God is somehow sovereign over people becoming Christians, but not over their perseverance as Christians. God is sovereign over everything (Romans 8:28, Ephesians 1:11), not despite the choices we make but through the choices we make. Restricting God’s sovereignty to be like the sovereignty that we have over our choices and actions is to imagine that God is playing chess against you, rather than using you as the piece he created, whether you’re black or white, towards his ultimate end of heaven.
Open theism tries to bridge the gap arguing that God is like a brilliant chess player. People are also players in the game, but God is so good that he always wins, using even his opponents moves to achieve his desired outcome. This incorporates the idea of middle knowledge: that God knows everything that there is to know, but he can’t know our choices until we make them. If our choices were known in advance, they wouldn’t be real choices. This is a logical outworking of the philosophical idea that foreknowledge contradicts freedom. If it’s possible to have foreknowledge of the future, then it’s not possible to exercise any freedom that would change that future. Therefore, if God is sovereign, then people have no choice but to do his sovereign will. Ultimately, this is another exaltation of free will at the expense of God’s sovereignty.
What exactly is at stake here? Advocates of free will argue that exalting God’s sovereignty at the expense of free will leads to a hyper-Calvinism where we don’t have to do anything because God is sovereign over everything. Calvinists argue that exalting free will at the expense of God’s sovereignty leads to a theology of salvation by works which denies God’s grace, for we are “chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works, if it were, grace would no longer be grace” (Romans 11:5-6). In the end it is a battle of wills. Is God sovereign in his will for salvation or do we exercise free will in becoming a Christian? Do we persevere as Christians because it is God’s will, or is it our will to persevere? Is human history the result of God’s sovereign will, or the result of the countless human choices that have shaped human history?
At the heart of the tension is the demand that we draw the battle lines between God’s will and our will. We demand that our will be free such that God cannot be sovereign over it, or that God’s will be sovereign such that people don’t have any freedom under it. However this is a false dichotomy that stems from an overly simplistic understanding of God’s sovereignty that’s bound by the limits of human sovereignty. Two people’s choices can easily be in a zero-sum conflict (tug of war); the more a certain decision is one person’s choice, the less it is another’s. But God’s choices and ours are not in the same “either/or” relationship that our choices are in with another person’s. God’s choices are put into effect by the choices of people, God’s will is achieved through human will, not instead of human will (Genesis 50:20, Acts 2:23).
The question then becomes, how does God’s will transcend our will? What is the relationship between God’s choices and ours? The bible describes people as free to chose and accountable for their choices (Deuteronomy 30:11-20), but compared to God’s freedom, people are like tools in the hands of the God who wields us (Isaiah 10:15). People have real agency, but when compared to God’s agency, people’s actions appear to be a mechanism for God’s agency. By analogy, computers make “decisions” all the time. A computer’s processor decides which instructions to execute and when, and its decisions sometimes depend on the “decisions” of other computer processors. The decisions of two CPU’s can easily be in a zero-sum conflict, for example, when it comes to the order and priority of sending and receiving information across a network, the more its one CPU’s decision, the less it is another’s. But when a computer’s ability to make decisions is compared to ours, it becomes negligible. People have infinity more freedom than computers, but God has infinitely more freedom than people.
If God is a chess player, then he is not playing against us, he is moving us, his pieces, to the eschatological end of human history. With sin and death already dealt with on the cross, the final move to make is to send his son a second time to bring the kingdom of God into completion. God has “mate in one”, but he continues to turn pawns into queens, or more accurately (and this is where the analogy breaks down), to turn black pieces into white pieces. It’s not as though God is somehow sovereign over people becoming Christians, but not over their perseverance as Christians. God is sovereign over everything (Romans 8:28, Ephesians 1:11), not despite the choices we make but through the choices we make. Restricting God’s sovereignty to be like the sovereignty that we have over our choices and actions is to imagine that God is playing chess against you, rather than using you as the piece he created, whether you’re black or white, towards his ultimate end of heaven.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Defending Human Freedom
To what extent are we free? When it comes to reconciling God’s sovereignty and free will, it all depends on what you mean by free will. Freedom is necessary for people to be responsible for their actions, you can destroy a machine that constitutes a threat, but you cannot punish a robot for doing what it’s programmed to do. Retributive justice requires that the perpetrators act be of their own volition. Free agents are responsible, but the mechanisms they use cannot be blamed for doing what they could not avoid doing. An agent is responsible to the extent that they were free to act, and free from blame to the extent that they were compelled by another. While some significant theologians (Augustine, Calvin, Carson) have suggested that our freedom does not include the power to contrary (the ability to avoid doing what we’re free to do), this I believe, leads to the inescapable conclusion that God punishes people with an eternity of suffering for things that they’re unable to avoid doing. God’s revelation of his justice and our responsibility drives me to defend human freedom.
Jesus says “Everyone who sins is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). Does this mean that we offer ourselves willing slaves or that we are compelled to sin against our will? Romans 6 describes people as either slaves to sin or slave to righteousness without exception. Can someone who’s a slave to sin blame their sin on their slavery? Paul anticipates this question in Romans 9, if God is sovereign, “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” (Romans 9:19). Paul reminds us that we cannot blame God for our sin against God, “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, Why did you make me like this?” (Romans 9:20), and then suggests why God may have “bore with great patience the objects of his wrath” (Romans 9:22). Whatever we make of Paul’s suggestion as to the reason why, what is clear is that God bears with those who are under his wrath with great patience. It makes little sense for God to bear with them with great patience if he is actively causing them to sin. He is patient with them, not with himself. God passively allows us to sin, he doesn’t force anyone’s hand.
Some object with the observation that “God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (Romans 9:18). If we read the account in Exodus on which this is based, we find that Pharaoh hardens his own heart (Exodus 8:15) and then God hardens his heart (Exodus 9:12), Pharaoh’s officials harden their own hearts (Exodus 9:34) and then God hardens their hearts (Exodus 10:1). Paul describes this process as God giving people over to their sin (Romans 1:24, 26, 28). God doesn’t harden people who would otherwise have soft hearts, his punishes sin by giving people over to their sin, passively and without compulsion, but ultimately and eternally in hell. God chooses to save some by sheer grace, and this certainly implies that he chooses not to save others. But this doctrine, known as double predestination, sometimes carries an assumption that people are somewhat neutral before God, who chooses some to go up to heaven and others to go down to hell. However, we cannot blame God for our sin, we freely choose the path to destruction and make our own way to hell. God graciously rescues some along the way and puts them on the path to life. Jesus’ death and resurrection made the way to heaven.
If it’s impossible for sinners to avoid sinning, then in what sense are such people without excuse (Romans 1:20)? Who is Paul describing as they who “show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them”(Romans 2:15)? In Romans 3 Paul brings together a number of Old Testament passages to demonstrate that there is no one righteous, not even one, all have turned away (Romans 3:10-18). If we as a race had no option to do otherwise, then this is less of a condemnation of us, than it is a description of the power of that which has enslaved us. This passage however, has immeasurably more force if it is possible to be righteous and yet there is no one who is, if we are able to seek God and yet no one does. Left to ourselves, no one does choose God, but that doesn’t mean that no one can choose God. Jesus was fully human and he did. To say that only he can is to deny that he was tempted in every way that we are (Hebrews 4:15). I’m extremely confident that I won’t choose to murder someone today, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t. The fact that people don’t choose God on their own, doesn’t mean that they can’t.
Augustine wrote that “what our hearts desire, our will chooses and our mind justifies”. The bible tells us that “Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires” (Romans 8:5). There is a real sense is which our will is a constant slave to what our hearts desire, but this is saying nothing more than affirming that we choose to do what we want. The key issue in the discussion of free will is, how free are our hearts? We seek to be free to follow our hearts, not to subjugate our hearts to follow something else. To say that we’re not free to want whatever we want, is a misunderstanding of the word “want”. Our hearts desires are our own, to blame your choices on your heart is to blame yourself.
In Genesis 6 “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5). We have no one to blame for this but ourselves, God didn’t incline our hearts that way, we did. The gospel however changes our heart so that we no longer desire sin but desire God instead. We no longer seek to be free to sin but to be free from sin. Both sin and faith are driven by the heart: sin is willful disobedience, faith is willful obedience. The bible says that “There is no one who seeks God. All have turned away” (Romans 3:11-12). It’s not that something else turned us away from God, we are the ones who turned away. It’s not that we’re unable to seek God, the force of the words is in the fact that there is no one who seeks God. God seeks us and turns us back to him, not despite our inability to do so, but despite our unwillingness to do so.
Jesus says “Everyone who sins is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). Does this mean that we offer ourselves willing slaves or that we are compelled to sin against our will? Romans 6 describes people as either slaves to sin or slave to righteousness without exception. Can someone who’s a slave to sin blame their sin on their slavery? Paul anticipates this question in Romans 9, if God is sovereign, “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” (Romans 9:19). Paul reminds us that we cannot blame God for our sin against God, “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, Why did you make me like this?” (Romans 9:20), and then suggests why God may have “bore with great patience the objects of his wrath” (Romans 9:22). Whatever we make of Paul’s suggestion as to the reason why, what is clear is that God bears with those who are under his wrath with great patience. It makes little sense for God to bear with them with great patience if he is actively causing them to sin. He is patient with them, not with himself. God passively allows us to sin, he doesn’t force anyone’s hand.
Some object with the observation that “God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (Romans 9:18). If we read the account in Exodus on which this is based, we find that Pharaoh hardens his own heart (Exodus 8:15) and then God hardens his heart (Exodus 9:12), Pharaoh’s officials harden their own hearts (Exodus 9:34) and then God hardens their hearts (Exodus 10:1). Paul describes this process as God giving people over to their sin (Romans 1:24, 26, 28). God doesn’t harden people who would otherwise have soft hearts, his punishes sin by giving people over to their sin, passively and without compulsion, but ultimately and eternally in hell. God chooses to save some by sheer grace, and this certainly implies that he chooses not to save others. But this doctrine, known as double predestination, sometimes carries an assumption that people are somewhat neutral before God, who chooses some to go up to heaven and others to go down to hell. However, we cannot blame God for our sin, we freely choose the path to destruction and make our own way to hell. God graciously rescues some along the way and puts them on the path to life. Jesus’ death and resurrection made the way to heaven.
If it’s impossible for sinners to avoid sinning, then in what sense are such people without excuse (Romans 1:20)? Who is Paul describing as they who “show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them”(Romans 2:15)? In Romans 3 Paul brings together a number of Old Testament passages to demonstrate that there is no one righteous, not even one, all have turned away (Romans 3:10-18). If we as a race had no option to do otherwise, then this is less of a condemnation of us, than it is a description of the power of that which has enslaved us. This passage however, has immeasurably more force if it is possible to be righteous and yet there is no one who is, if we are able to seek God and yet no one does. Left to ourselves, no one does choose God, but that doesn’t mean that no one can choose God. Jesus was fully human and he did. To say that only he can is to deny that he was tempted in every way that we are (Hebrews 4:15). I’m extremely confident that I won’t choose to murder someone today, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t. The fact that people don’t choose God on their own, doesn’t mean that they can’t.
Augustine wrote that “what our hearts desire, our will chooses and our mind justifies”. The bible tells us that “Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires” (Romans 8:5). There is a real sense is which our will is a constant slave to what our hearts desire, but this is saying nothing more than affirming that we choose to do what we want. The key issue in the discussion of free will is, how free are our hearts? We seek to be free to follow our hearts, not to subjugate our hearts to follow something else. To say that we’re not free to want whatever we want, is a misunderstanding of the word “want”. Our hearts desires are our own, to blame your choices on your heart is to blame yourself.
In Genesis 6 “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5). We have no one to blame for this but ourselves, God didn’t incline our hearts that way, we did. The gospel however changes our heart so that we no longer desire sin but desire God instead. We no longer seek to be free to sin but to be free from sin. Both sin and faith are driven by the heart: sin is willful disobedience, faith is willful obedience. The bible says that “There is no one who seeks God. All have turned away” (Romans 3:11-12). It’s not that something else turned us away from God, we are the ones who turned away. It’s not that we’re unable to seek God, the force of the words is in the fact that there is no one who seeks God. God seeks us and turns us back to him, not despite our inability to do so, but despite our unwillingness to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)