Although I don't often write confessional posts, there is an issue that has been weighing on my heart. Certain discussions throughout the evangelical wing of the blogosphere have led me to finally speak up about an issue that I've tended to keep to myself. The problem concerns my faith: I am plagued by certainty.
It's no secret that I have a high opinion of my own opinion; a confidence in their correctness that borders on the obnoxious. Like Ivan Turgenev, "I share no man's opinions; I have my own." But while I may embrace and defend my opinions with firmness, it is a humble form of certitude in which I have to acknowledge that there is a statistical likelihood -- whether trivial or significant -- that I could be wrong.
Not so, however, when it comes to matters of faith.
I don't doubt that God exists or that the Bible is his Word. I don't doubt that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he died and was buried, or that he rose again after three days in the tomb. I don't doubt that he died for me, a truly wretched sinner, or that I will spend eternity in His presence. I would find it easier to doubt my own existence than to doubt the Nicene Creed. Maybe I'm delusional (though I doubt that) but I have few doubts about my faith.
My certitude is admittedly personal. I believe I have justification and warrant for my beliefs and that if pressed, I could attempt to provide proof and evidence for these claims. The level of "proof" I could give, though, would not provide the same level of certitude for you that I find sufficient for me. Proof is rather limited in that regard. I couldn't prove that Joe Carter exists much less prove that he likes the color blue, that he kissed Christie Cozart in the 7th grade, or that he hates referring to himself in the third person.
While I can't prove those things beyond a shadow of a doubt, I don't doubt them at all. Similarly, my certainty in my faith isn't based on what I can prove to other people or even, for that matter, what I can prove to myself.
Perhaps I was born too late, for prior to the 1630's my view wouldn't have been out of the ordinary. But the Catholic philosopher Rene Descartes changed everything when he set out on his inner quest to find certitude. He realized that the one thing he could be certain about was the fact of his doubting. Doubting is a form of thinking and thinking requires a thinker. The existence of the "I" that was doing the doubting, therefore, could not itself be doubted. Descartes declared Cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am--but what he should have said was Dubito ergo sum --I doubt, therefore I am.
However, for many people today doubt not only confirms existence, it confirms humility. To lack doubt is to be pretentious, perhaps even un-Christian. I've heard some people claim that doubt is necessary catalyst for faith! In the Gospels, though, the word 'doubt' consistently carries a negative connotation since Jesus character and abilities are almost always the object of doubt (see: Matt. 12:38-42, 14:31; Luke 24:38; John 20:27). James even calls the doubting man "double-minded" and compares him to a person who "is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind." Yet while Scripture may have a low regard for it, many Christians consider anyone lacking in doubt to be pretentious, arrogant, or dishonest.
Lest you think I'm being facetious, let me assure you that I'm quite serious about the matter. This inability to express doubt has even caused tensions in my marriage. My wife used to suffer debilitating panic attacks brought on by a still, small voice that whispers, "You're going to die someday." Although she's a believer, the thought of dying traumatizes her both physically and emotionally. Seeing her in such a state is heartbreaking.
She would often asks me why I don't have a fear of dying. I want desperately to empathize and say that I do, but I cannot bring myself to tell that lie. Instead I explain that I believe in eternal life. I tell here that eternal life is not something that begins in the future but something has already begun. My "life"--my entry into eternal life-- began the day I surrendered to Christ and will continue, though with some considerable changes, forever.
I might as well be speaking in Swahili, though, for she finds my words incomprehensible. For her this life--the in-the-flesh, day-to-day existence--is certain, while the future glorified existence can be--doubted. The fact that I can't comprehend such a distinction divides us and prevents us from communicating.
As Jude exhorts, "be merciful to those who doubt" and I truly do try to be compassionate and understanding, recognizing that my sense of certainty is a gift from God. Without it I'd probably allow doubts about my faith to become an excuse for even greater depths of navel-gazing. An extra dose of certitude is probably needed just to bring me up to a level of basic normality.
Yet while I recognize that theological certainty does not make me a special brand of saint, it also doesn't make me some perverse freak of faith. I shouldn't feel a need to hang my head in shame because I don't question the existence of God. I shouldn't be asked to dismiss the experiences I've had with the Lord as if there is a possibility that they are not real. I shouldn't have to lie and say that "I understand" when people say that are not sure that there is a God or that life continues after death.
I also don't expect you to be ashamed if you feel differently. I won't dismiss your questions or your hesitations. I won't ask you to say you understand my faith if you don't. I'll respect your doubts and in return all I ask is that you be merciful to those of us who are certain.
What would you say to a Muslim or Mormon (or atheist) who has the same total certainty in their religious views that you do in yours?
What would you say to a Muslim or Mormon (or atheist) who has the same total certainty in their religious views that you do in yours?
That he's certain they're wrong, and that much more wrong for being certain about their wrongness.
Are you sure that's a problem?
"While I can't prove those things beyond a shadow of a doubt, I don't doubt them at all."
If you admit you can't prove something to be absolutely certain, why would you act as if it was absolutely certain?
Are you sure that's a problem?
Well, it becomes a problem very quickly when you realize that many religions are mutually exclusive from each other, are unable to show that one is that much better than another from a moral standpoint, and finally, they make claims about the world we live in that are demonstrably false.
That should put a pretty strong limitation on anyone's degree of certainty in their religion, if they are truly being intellectually honest with themselves about their beliefs.
Joe sees certainty as a virtue, and that's fine by me. The problem though, is that his degree of certainty has outstripped his ability to support it at such a high level. In other words, Joe seems to be often blinded by his faith (see his periodic postings about the "superior" moral foundation of Christianity as an example). Generally, I'm willing to let such things slide except for when they lead to conclusions that clearly contradict things that we know to a much higher degree of certainty than Joe can really claim for his faith. At that point, it's time to concede to logic and reason, after all, those traits are in fact God given gifts as well...
Joe and I are (spiritually) identical twins! I'm certain of it!
Seriously, I have blessed assurance. And I'm thankful to God for that blessing. It seems that in today's society, and even within the Church, that that is an unwanted blessing. If folks don't want the blessing of assurance, that's their choice.
But for me, yaaaaaaHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Thank you Lord!!!
Ex-preacher,
What would you say to a Muslim or Mormon (or atheist) who has the same total certainty in their religious views that you do in yours?
No need to get all hypothetical; I'm a certain atheist. I have no doubt that there is no God or that our natural life in the here and now is all that we get.
I'm willing to entertain other possibilities in theory. But I've seen evidence for those possibilities time and time again, and it's always come up short. And the evidence for my belief seems (to me) close to irrefutable.
I think that's why I like Joe and appreciate him. I think we're theological soulmates who landed on opposite sides of the fence. The only material difference between us when it comes to faith is that I like to entertain doubt and opposing points of view as much as possible, whereas Joe seems to get personally offended by doubt when it is applied to his faith.
I can always entertain the possibility, at least hypothetically, that I'm wrong about atheism and theism. But theism and Christianity seem so fantastic to me that emotionally I regard it as a species of impossible science fiction or fantasy.
That is not to say that I find religious belief to be ridiculous or irrational. I was raised a Christian, so I understand Joe's faith and respect it to a large extent. I know where Joe is coming from.
But I've explored that view of the cosmos and of life, to the best of my abilities, and I have rejected it as firmly as I can reject anything.
I don't think it is a bad thing to be "plagued" by certainty. But it is wise to realize that people are often most certain about things they are totally wrong about. There's something about human psychology that seems to repress doubt and contrary evidence when it comes to our most cherished beliefs.
It's something I've noticed in myself and in others, this defensive certainty. One of the biggest challenges in life is to recognize when you're flat-out wrong about something important, and revise your beliefs accordingly.
When a belief becomes part of your personality or part of your identity, it is very hard, sometimes even impossible, to let it go. When evidence lands outside one's comfort zone, it can be easier to ignore it or rationalize it and rearrange reality according to one's beliefs, rather than rearrange one's beliefs according to reality. It seems to be part of human nature, including my own.
If you admit you can't prove something to be absolutely certain, why would you act as if it was absolutely certain?
I can prove something to myself much easier than I can prove something to you. For example, right now I can prove to myself that I am thinking about having another cup of coffee, but how would I go about proving it with absolute certainty to you?
Mathew says:
"No need to get all hypothetical; I'm a certain atheist. I have no doubt that there is no God or that our natural life in the here and now is all that we get…."
And then later adds:
"But it is wise to realize that people are often most certain about things they are totally wrong about. There's something about human psychology that seems to repress doubt and contrary evidence when it comes to our most cherished beliefs."
OK, but wouldn't that suggest that a wise person should conclude that that Matthew is "totally wrong" about his atheism? And that his own expression of certitude about God's non-existence is reflective of his own tendency to "repress doubt and contrary evidence" when it comes to his "cherished" atheistic beliefs!
Sorta like, "suppressing the truth" (See Rom. 1)?
OK, but wouldn't that suggest that a wise person should conclude that that Matthew is "totally wrong" about his atheism? And that his own expression of certitude about God's non-existence is reflective of his own tendency to "repress doubt and contrary evidence" when it comes to his "cherished" atheistic beliefs!
But then a "wise" person could use precisely the same reasoning to conclude that Joe is completely wrong too. This doesn't strike me as a particularly fruitful line of reasoning.
ucfengr:
But that has to do with something completely internal to you and therefore subjective. For external things, everything from whether there is a couch in your living room or whether God exists, wouldn't the standard of proof be the same for everyone?
What would you say to a Muslim or Mormon (or atheist) who has the same total certainty in their religious views that you do in yours?
Great question. I would tell them that one of us is wrong. ; )
Seriously, the law of non-contradiction (another thing that I'm fairly certain about) hold that we both can't be right about the claims we make. But that does not believe that we can't believe that we have sufficient warrant for our beliefs. If I had a brain malfunction that caused me to see red items as blue, I have internal justification for my belief even though I am wrong. (In other words, I have a justified belief, but not a "justified true belief.")
Loki If you admit you can't prove something to be absolutely certain, why would you act as if it was absolutely certain?
The beliefs I have certainty about can be tested, though not necessarily without paying a high cost. I can't prove, with absolute certainty, that if I step out in front of a speeding bus that it won't pass right through me. But I have enough certainty in my knowledge of physics to think that is a possibility in which I should act as if I am certain.
phasespace Generally, I'm willing to let such things slide except for when they lead to conclusions that clearly contradict things that we know to a much higher degree of certainty than Joe can really claim for his faith. At that point, it's time to concede to logic and reason, after all, those traits are in fact God given gifts as well...
That's an interesting point. Can you give me an example of what you mean? What things do you think I believe that are contradicted by other things for which we have a higher certainty?
But that has to do with something completely internal to you and therefore subjective. For external things, everything from whether there is a couch in your living room or whether God exists, wouldn't the standard of proof be the same for everyone?
Obviously not or we would never have "hung juries".
NICK said:
"But then a "wise" person could use precisely the same reasoning to conclude that Joe is completely wrong too. This doesn't strike me as a particularly fruitful line of reasoning."
I'll let Joe speak for himself. And, I have no idea whether this is a "fruitful line of reasoning" or not. But there does seem to be a rather blatant contradiction in Matthew's claim to certainty (a person such as God does not exist) and his simultaneous claim that those who claim certainty are likely to be deceived. And thus, there is something odd about his normative claim that people OUGHT NOT be so certain. He seems to be implicitly indicting HIMSELF for his own certainty. Or am I missing something here?
I was certain that removing a couple of statements would fix your layout problem. So I tested it locally and got a working but wrong result. The reliability was high and I was justified in my belief, but I was still wrong.
So I did more analysis and it appears that your web server is generating the DIVs improperly. If you outline a web page you'll see how it is failing. I'm certain of it. Almost.
Hire me and I'll fix it. ;-)
"so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:4)
Amen!
Keith,
... there does seem to be a rather blatant contradiction in Matthew's claim to certainty (a person such as God does not exist) and his simultaneous claim that those who claim certainty are likely to be deceived.
I don't think that certainty always leads to falsehood. I'm not even sure that certainty leads to falsehood most of the time. But I do think that certainty raises a red flag.
When one is certain, one is more susceptible to fooling oneself. Certainty is a signal that one should be treading carefully and compensating for the biases that certainty is known to foster in our minds.
My exact words were:
But it is wise to realize that people are often most certain about things they are totally wrong about. There's something about human psychology that seems to repress doubt and contrary evidence when it comes to our most cherished beliefs.
So if you would like to apply that to me, then for sure, that would imply that there is a good possibility that I am fooling myself about atheism. But since I am aware of my capability for self-delusion, I do go to great lengths to test the beliefs that I have the most faith in, or at least I try to.
For example, when it comes to atheism, I have, as I said above, explored my beliefs from every angle I know of. Of course, I still know that I could be wrong, but at least my wrong-headedness has a very solid basis :)
And I can imagine various scenarios where I could be partially or totally wrong about things. I don't think those scenarios are actually possible, but not because I have faith or certainty, but rather because those scenarios are very highly implausible based upon everything I have learned to be true about reality. My faith is not based upon the stipulations of an outside authority or revelation, but upon a hard-earned accumulation of knowledge over four decades.
Even so, I like to think that if I were presented with evidence that I am wrong, I would be honest and strong enough to look at it uncritically and change my mind if it were warranted.
Proof of a historical event is built on testamony. There is more evidence about Jesus Death and Resurrection, then any other event of its time. If you are deluded by the view that the Gospels can not be correct because of there supernatural nature, of course you will try to find inaccurate reasons to refute them. C.S. Lewis said men that can not even understand him, their contempary, try to write off The Gospels in a vain attempt to refute the obvious. If you are a secular non believer you have insulated yourself from the good GOD that loves you. all you need to do is forget the argument and ask Him.
"But it is wise to realize that people are often most certain about things they are totally wrong about." Why is this wise? This is an assertion and is most likely verifiable. I just don't buy it. Those things about which I am certain (the love of my husband, the love of God to me) are verifiable to me and to those who seek to know me. I can make an argument for God's love toward me and others, but at the end of the day, having evaluated the evidence, it is when I believe that I see. Yes it is mystical, and beyond science and logical, watertight proofs, but it is the realm of the heart and the soul, not the laboratory. It is the certainty of hope and certainty is one attitude that is today very much out of style. In the culture of 2008, skeptics reign. You can be sure of only the fact that you do not know, nothing more.
I am not a skeptic about God, I am sure. Go Joe!
That's an interesting point. Can you give me an example of what you mean?
Well, let's take the evolution "debate," for example. Now, I don't believe that you have come out in favor of one position or the other in this case, but you have certainly voiced skepticism on this issue. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but can you say that your skepticism is well placed on this subject? Is your mistrust of the scientists that say that the evidence for evolution is air tight well founded? (Note: I admit I'm making an assumption of mistrust here, but I think it's justified based on your admitted skepticism on the subject.)
Barbara:
My question to you: Why do think the skeptics reign in 2008? I think may I disagree with you on this point depending on exactly what you mean.
As someone that is well versed in the sciences, skepticism is in my nature, but my skepticism is not absolute. I do think that we know a lot of things from both a factual and moral stand point that are indeed "certain." Meaning that the likelihood of this knowledge being wrong is too small to be worth sweating over. But this is also why I must reject your mysticism.
Richard Feynman (amoung others) have said that science is way of trying not to fool yourself. Mysticism is diametrically opposed to that kind of thinking. How do you know you have a soul? How do you know that God loves you? How do you know that God even exists? I have no doubt that you are certain of your answers, but how can you be sure that you are not fooling yourself when drawing those conclusions? How can you be certain that the conclusions that you have come to are not just culturally derived? Or wishful thinking? Or something else entirely? Mysticism does not provide a satisfying answer to these questions.
Ray and Barbara,
I was not bearing witness to the certitude of my atheism because I wish to convert you or undermine your faith. I am trying to make the case for humility, and for respect for those whose beliefs contradict one's own.
Hold on to the supernatural and hold on to God's love, proclaim it from the rooftops, by all means, and make the world a better place. But please try to understand as well that worthy people have disagreed and will continue to disagree with you. People can live with, respect, and love each other even if they seem to believe in mutually exclusive certitudes.
Truth is not subjective, but that doesn't mean we need to ex-communicate each other when we disagree. If God exists, then he has given us freedom of thought and conscience. If God allows us to be skeptics and heretics and atheists, then we should abide by his will and his commandment to love even those who don't attend church with us.
I'm sure you do that anyway, without my telling you to. But sometimes the urge to label people as the "other" can start to displace our intention to deal with each other as equal brothers and sisters.
And if I have been guilty of that in this comment thread, please accept my apology: Sorry!
Cheers,
Matthew
Phasespace,
How do you know you have a soul? How do you know that God loves you? How do you know that God even exists?
I think that these are important questions, and it sounds like we have similar answers to them.
But I don't think these are the most important questions. I think the most important questions are: How should you treat other people? How do you treat other people? How should you treat yourself?
Of course, my questions are related to and entangled in your questions; but it makes a difference which questions you make a priority.
Mysticism is unreliable. Mysticism can lead to wildly divergent faith experiences and beliefs. Mysticism is not very amenable to experimental methods and logic. But mysticism does exist, and it would be a mistake to ignore it and discount it out of hand.
Richard Feynman was right about science, but science is not the best tool for answering every question. Science has a restricted domain in that sense. I wholeheartedly agree with you that mysticism does not always, or even consistently, provide satisfying answers. But perhaps mysticism offers clues in domains where science can be a bit of a stretch.
Regarding skepticism, my assertion that it is in style in 2008 is based on the anecdotal evidence that to be unsure is to be wise. To not be certain is to be humble. I would have to say that this is my observation, but I think it is accurate. Scientific skepticism is indeed a part of the process of discovery and invention and I have no issue with it, nor with an honest skepticism that leads to discovery of answers or progress toward and answer. However, skepticism as an attitude or posture only leads to uncertainty. We can ask questions and voice doubt all day long, but need to be willing to hear answers and be open to certainty when we discover it. That does not seem to be the aim of the cultural skeptics of today.
To Matthew, I respect your views and your God given right (I believe)to hold them. You are right to say that we can believe differently and still communicate and care for one another; the Christian is called to this. I only think that certainty of belief is not necessarily pride or arrogance. It may just be certainty. However, as I said before, the attitude of the day seems to be skepticism and that is seen to be the position of humility. I am certain of my beliefs, but that does not make me a proud person, it makes me a person with certainty. I think that many people today do not know how to react to a person who is sure of their beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be. Certainty tends to offend and intimidate people.
smmtheory:
You are missing the point of my post, and I'm not going to respond to your lame baiting. I am asking about the justification for (and wisdom of) selectively rejecting the scientific view whenever it suits your purpose. The specifics of the case are irrelevant because biology is only one example of many where certain religious folks proactively reject science, and some are even making disbelief in science and reason into some kind of perverted test of faith. Joe's claims about certainty are definitely relevant here. Your post does not address that topic, and I have no desire to go down the road your are trying tread. If you want to discuss that issue, go consult talk.origins.
My apologies if you think I'm being short with you, however posts such as yours are explicitly not what I'm interested in addressing at the moment. Your post just muddies the water with a lot of irrelevant baggage, and I want to avoid that.
Michael said:
"I don't think that certainty always leads to falsehood. I'm not even sure that certainty leads to falsehood most of the time. But I do think that certainty raises a red flag."
Ok, then that would mean that your own certainty about your atheism (about which you have claimed certainty) should raise a "red flag." Does it raise a red flag for you? And if I tell you, "your certainty about your atheism raises a 'red flag' for me," does this mean that you have to admit that I am right to be skeptical of YOUR certainty?
Barbara,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I would like to explain how I see these things too.
Certainty allows action where too much doubt inhibits action. So when certainty is justified, doubt can be a genuine, highly consequential problem.
The problem with certainty, however, is what I pointed out in my first comment: certainty has a perverse way, sometimes, of psychologically reinforcing beliefs that are incorrect. And even though we hope that our certainty does not result in pride or arrogance, I am certain that you have observed that sinful condition in others.
To avoid pride, we must adopt genuine humility and forbearance. But how does one avoid error?
A religious person might respond by telling us to seek out the right scripture or scriptures. Then God will give us some of his insight. I would respond by insisting that we must look at how we know things to be true, and hold our beliefs to the highest standards of evidence. A posture of skepticism is indispensible if we choose to examine our beliefs in this way.
The skepticism, however, is not the goal. It is only a tool to reach the goal, which is the best approximation we can discover of the truth. To adopt skepticism as a permanent attitude is to unnecessarily disarm oneself of all the virtues of certainty in a misguided attempt to avoid the pitfalls.
Phasespace,
Three religious objections to evolution:
1) How did souls evolve? Do chimps and orangutans have souls? Do bacteria and moss have souls? Where along the line do souls kick in, and how?
2) Jesus was fully human and fully divine. So how could evolution lead to Mary's giving birth to God the Son? Something else was going on here, at least this one time.
3) A question that makes sense from a materialistic viewpoint as well: how did conscious beings such as you and I evolve? How can purely physical matter evolve into sentient, aware matter?
Now here's a question about science:
Is science a good guide for morality?
Richard Feynman's first science gig out of school was to assist with the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos. He helped create the atom bomb. His work was perhaps even more important in developing the hydrogen bomb.
If the world ends up getting destroyed in a general nuclear holocaust (say, precipitated when Iran nukes Israel or Pakistan nukes India), would that be evidence that science was a force that people weren't able to handle? Would that indicate that science was somehow immoral or amoral?
I'm with you Joe. I have absolute certainty about my faith. It comes as a result of having made such a mess of my life that my only hope was to call on God. He came and though I didn't see Him physically (not surprising as He's a spirit), I was able to perceive His arrival and His power. I feel like I belong somewhere between Thomas who Jesus told blessed are you to have seen and believed and the people who were blessed for believing and not seeing that He mentioned next. I know that God has spoken to me through the bible and I have had answered prayer that I could see His hand on and I think to some degree true of all Christians. Sadly, though I can tell you many incidents in great detail, the experience doesn't transfer with the information. So, may all the unbelievers reading this fall into circumstances so dire and hopeless that only God could deal with them.
Barbara,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I would like to explain how I see these things too.
Certainty allows action where too much doubt inhibits action. So when certainty is justified, doubt can be a genuine, highly consequential problem.
The problem with certainty, however, is what I pointed out in my first comment: certainty has a perverse way, sometimes, of psychologically reinforcing beliefs that are incorrect. And even though we hope that our certainty does not result in pride or arrogance, I am certain that you have observed that sinful condition in others.
To avoid pride, we must adopt genuine humility and forbearance. But how does one avoid error?
A religious person might respond by telling us to seek out the right scripture or scriptures. Then God will give us some of his insight. I would respond by insisting that we must look at how we know things to be true, and hold our beliefs to the highest standards of evidence. A posture of skepticism is indispensible if we choose to examine our beliefs in this way.
The skepticism, however, is not the goal. It is only a tool to reach the goal, which is the best approximation we can discover of the truth. To adopt skepticism as a permanent attitude is to unnecessarily disarm oneself of all the virtues of certainty in a misguided attempt to avoid the pitfalls.
Phasespace,
Three religious objections to evolution:
1) How did souls evolve? Do chimps and orangutans have souls? Do bacteria and moss have souls? Where along the line do souls kick in, and how?
2) Jesus was fully human and fully divine. So how could evolution lead to Mary's giving birth to God the Son? Something else was going on here, at least this one time.
3) A question that makes sense from a materialistic viewpoint as well: how did conscious beings such as you and I evolve? How can purely physical matter evolve into sentient, aware matter?
Now here's a question about science:
Is science a good guide for morality?
Richard Feynman's first science gig out of school was to assist with the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos. He helped create the atom bomb. His work was perhaps even more important in developing the hydrogen bomb.
If the world ends up getting destroyed in a general nuclear holocaust (say, precipitated when Iran nukes Israel or Pakistan nukes India), would that be evidence that science was a force that people weren't able to handle? Would that indicate that science was somehow immoral or amoral?
Keith,
... your own certainty about your atheism (about which you have claimed certainty) should raise a "red flag."
Yes, it should.
Does it raise a red flag for you?
Yes, it does.
And if I tell you, "your certainty about your atheism raises a 'red flag' for me," does this mean that you have to admit that I am right to be skeptical of YOUR certainty?
Of course.
And what does a red flag mean, in practice?
It means to approach a proposition with very healthy skepticism, and be on a sharp lookout for sneaky errors which can creep into even the most careful analysis. It means getting a lot of input from people and things which contradict you, and never to dismiss something as false without giving it the best consideration possible.
Naturally, such strenuous investigation and back and forth can only be seriously applied to the most important propositions. We don't need to spend a lot of time answering questions such as whether or not to have breakfast today, or picking which route to take to work, even if we are certain about what we are going to do.
"So, may all the unbelievers reading this fall into circumstances so dire and hopeless that only God could deal with them."
I know that you think this would be a blessing in disguise, but, speaking as an unbeliever, it sounds like a curse to me.
It would certainly turn out to be a curse if in such circumstances a person stubbornly refused to turn to God. Still, if things are so hopeless that it takes God we become willing to see if He just might be there and by the time you have reached the age of the commentators on this site it will take a good shock to get their attention. For you Rob, I'll ammend my request to only those in who God could nurture a tiny bit of faith that they might call on him.
So, I debated whether or not I would comment on this this morning. After all, you're the guy who is certain. But you're also the guy with the wife who is having anxiety attacks because of "that voice".
And I've also heard that voice. And I'm also having anxiety attacks.
I finally decided not to write. I don't know why. I didn't feel like sharing, perhaps?
Anyway. Tonight I went to Bible study. And what was the topic? Doubts.
Figures.
I didn't share then, either. Not everything, anyway. I shared some questions I had, but I mostly stayed silent. The last thing I wanted to do was drag the other people in the group down.
But on the way home, I decided I'd write and let you know that I appreciate this post. Because No one in my personal life knows the doubts I have. And, quite frankly, I don't know of anyone who has been/ professes to be a Christian who has them. And I'm very glad I'm not alone.
Matthew,
That is part of the reason why I do not argue about evolution from a religious perspective. It is too easy for non-believers to scoff at religious notions of souls, and divinity. I'd much rather talk about what evidence is supposedly incontrovertable that it overwhelmingly favors evolution. Even though I don't reject the theory of evolution, I don't believe that it can be accepted with the certitude that some people do without a leap of faith similar to the leap of faith required to believe in God. So I get people like phasespace accusing me of baiting them.
Of course, you and I have already had a lengthy discussion about whether evolution methodology is natural vs. super-natural selection, haven't we?
My thesis is that being certain is considered offensive in a pluralistic society that holds to relative truth, moreso if Christians are certain, and espouse their certainty in the Public Square.
Because when Christians are certain, then it simply follows that they believe in Absolute Objective Truth, and the simple corollary is that other faith-traditions must, by logical necessity, be utterly wrong. According to the value grid of the false idol called Political Correctness, claiming exclusive Absolute Objective Truth is the sin against society that must be shouted down, dismissed, scorned, name-called, and hissed at.
The certainty possessed by many Christians is then translated as backwards fundamentalistic dogma by the popular media and culture. Thus, for many Christians, usually the nominal ones, they prefer not to express their faith as being Absolute Truth, much less being certain of Absolute Truth, and very much less in speaking in public about their certainty in Absolute Truth. I wish Christians were more bold in proclaiming their Lord and Savior. The privatizing of faith is not a good thing.
Going back to how certainty by Christians is offensive in polite secular pluralistic society. It now clarifies for me why secular liberals are joined at the hip with Islamic fundamentalists. Secular liberals and Islamic fundamentalists have a common enemy... Christians! Secular liberals dislike Christians because Christians believe in Absolute Truth and that this Truth will judge them. Plus Absolute Truth declares that secular liberals are sinners! Islamicists dislike Christians for all the usual reasons.
Then you have the old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." And since secular libs and Islamic fundamentalists regard Christians as the enemy, they then become allies against Christians and their certainty in Jesus Christ.
"It now clarifies for me why secular liberals are joined at the hip with Islamic fundamentalists."
What an asinine and unsupportable statement! I am a secular liberal, and I am certainly not "joined at the hip" with Islamic fundamentalists. I don't know of a single secular liberal who is. Christians are not my enemies, although my politics often are at odds with theirs. I would never ally myself with Islamic fundamentalists against Christians, and I don't think any secular liberal would. Why would I prefer their brand of fundamentalism to the less rabid fundamentalism of Christians?
Why is it that some can justify false witness if they think it advances their political views? Whom would Jesus defame?
You should be ashamed of your dishonesty.
Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz
http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/089526076X
Rob, I'm glad that you're a secular liberal who's not aligned with Islamic fundamentalists.
"Truth Unites... and Divides" or "Falsehoods Divide and Unites (the religious right)"?
David Horowitz? There's no need to even read that article.
I think "Truth Unites... and Divides" is not really a believer, but someone who is having some fun writing over the top imflamatory stuff as a way of mocking people of faith. I could be wrong though. Did you learn this stuff at "the truth project" seminar?
Mathew, I don't really consider the first two questions valid objections to evolution, even on religious grounds. Note to smmtheory, I'm not scoffing at these questions, I just don't think they are scientifically addressable.
Regarding souls. Before science could even begin to address this question, we would need evidence that souls exist in the first place. Then, and only then, could we begin to address what creatures have souls, and what do not. Until such time as that happens, it is strictly a question for theologians, and it really has nothing to do with science in general or evolution in particular.
The divinity of Jesus also doesn't seem to be addressable either, nor is the virgin birth (and what's more, there does seem to be some legitimate controversy even over that but that's beside the point). If God stepped in at this point for whatever reason, then he did it. I don't see how this can be used as an objection to evolution, even on on theological grounds. From a religious standpoint, a miracle is still a miracle regardless of any scientific theory.
Regarding the evolution of self awareness... Now that is good scientific question, and the answer is.... We don't know. We have some plausible ideas for how it *might* happen, but they are pretty much nothing more than speculation. We don't know, and we may never know for sure. I suppose that makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and it goes right back Joe's issue of certainty vs. uncertainty.
The truth is, we live in a world of uncertainty. As much as we know, and as much as we have learned, we still can not say for certain what will happen tomorrow, and I think this is the biggest appeal that religion has. It provides certainty in an uncertain world....and as I said before, I have no problem with that until that certainty causes people to draw false conclusions. The difference between Joe and myself is that I am comfortable with that uncertainty, or at least I've made peace with it. I probably wouldn't be a scientist if I was truly comfortable with it. I realize and understand that there are things both big and small that I will never know. Facing that truth, I have only two options, create an illusion of certainty around myself (which works for some, but as Joe has experienced with his wife, it doesn't work for everyone), or I can accept that there are just things that I don't know, and never will. I chose the latter option because I think it is the more intellectually honest position.
As for your last question... I made a statement in passing that alluded to a distinction between facts and morality, and that distinction applies here. I don't think that science can be used to determine morality. I do think that science (or at least reason and rationality if not formal science) can potentially tell us why we think certain acts are moral and others are not. I also think that science informs our morality (in that we definitely make moral decisions based on what science tells us), however I do not think that science by itself determines our morality. So Feynman shouldn't be faulted for his involvement in the Manhattan project any more than Smith and Wesson should be faulted for manufacturing firearms.
Hi Smm,
It is too easy for non-believers to scoff at religious notions of souls, and divinity.
The comment you quoted is a list of religious objections to evolution. Phasespace wanted to understand Joe's ambivalence towards evolution, so that is why I made the list.
If your reaction to the list is that you think I am scoffing at the ideas of souls and divinity, then it seems to me that you are being defensive. Why should an unbeliever talking about religion be considered scoffing?
A Christian should be happy that two unbelievers are respectfully discussing and probing religious ideas, but that seems to be something you're a little hostile towards.
Even though I don't reject the theory of evolution, I don't believe that it can be accepted with the certitude that some people do without a leap of faith similar to the leap of faith required to believe in God.
But this is exactly what Phasespace has been talking about. The evidence for evolution is no less compelling or any more controversial than it is for a thousand other scientific facts/theories. Yet Joe and yourself hold back from accepting it as part of reality.
Phasespace was just asking Joe why that it is.
How do we know evolution is true? Because if you look through the geological record of fossils, the plants and animals around today are different from the plants and animals around in the past. It's true that God could have created, or personally modified, a series of different species over the aeons, but that doesn't deny evolution, it's just a possible explanation for how it happened.
To a scientist, rejecting evolution is like reading a newspaper that says Gov. Spitzer of New York resigned and saying, "No, that's not true!" Now it's true that the newspaper could be false. For example, God could be playing tricks with us and trying to make us believe Gov. Spitzer resigned when he really didn't. You are free to believe that if you have reasons for doing so. But Phasespace and I are going to be curious to know how that could be the case.
The above will probably sound like scoffing to you again. But it's absolutely not, I'm just trying to explain my side of the conversation to you in very clear terms. Please accept it in that spirit if you can.
John W writes: "David Horowitz? There's no need to even read that article."
This is a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy. Thanks for demonstrating it so well John W.
Incidentally, it's not an article. It's a book.
"Conservatives seem baffled by the animosity held by liberals towards Christians and Jews. Christianity requires the believer submit to authority, accept the rule of government, be charitable to his fellow; in short, be a model citizen. Ditto the Jews, who held these requirements even longer than the Christians. Why are liberals so hostile to both? For that matter, why do liberals seem so smitten with that 7th century holdover known as Islam? Why do those on the Left seem less than eager to defend our freedom and way of life from the ravages of Islamic Jihad?
To understand this, it is necessary to examine the intellectual underpinnings of modern Liberal thought."
Continue reading at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/paradise_lost_why_the_left_lov.html
Joe:
I think you may be mistaking hubris for faith. Humility is the quality not of doubt but of teachability. That you know so much as to not be teachable is not faith but hubris.
Faith is only evident, is only proved upon testing. As my style of Christianity likes to say, faith only comes into play when it's possible to doubt. Most Christians "faith" is limited to their post death destination and as a result their faith is usually only tested when death is imminent. The same can be said for the atheists faith. There's a reason for the expression, there are no atheists in fox holes.
With respect to your not fearing death, I'm not afraid of being mugged in Central Park either. This may have something to do with the fact that I live 3000 miles away from Central Park. All soldiers are full of courage on the parade ground but it is only enemy fire that reveals their courage. All Christians are full of faith while singing hymns in church, while the certainty of death seems anything but. Only the real possibility of death reveals their faith.
If your wife's fear is a serious problem I suggest that she spend some time each morning and evening meditating on scriptures which promise us eternal life. She should read them out loud to herself. Murrmurring them as she thinks about their meaning. Scriptures like these (2 Corinthians 5:1-8, John 14:1-3, Philippians 1:21-26, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Greg Marquez
goyomarquez@earthlink.net
Phasespace,
Miracles are not a challenge to scientific theories because if God creates a miracle, then he just does it, and the framework of the scientific theory is not affected one way or another.
So the divine birth of Jesus and the existence of souls are not really relevant to evolution.
And why is that? Because there is no evidence, no scientific evidence, for either souls or the divinity of Jesus, so these are strictly matters of theology as opposed to science.
Well, that works for me, but only because I reject the notions of souls and a divine Jesus. I don't think that is going to be very satisfactory, however, to someone who does believe in souls and a divine Jesus.
If a Christian feels that evolution is a challenge to the idea of souls or to the idea of a divine Jesus, he or she is going to want to reject that evolution is the only way things happen in this world. Just affirming that science and theology deal with different topics doesn't seem to me like any kind of resolution to the conflict.
Regarding the evolution of self awareness... Now that is good scientific question, and the answer is.... We don't know.
Now if we don't know how self-awareness has evolved, and if you even think it unlikely that we could ever know, then isn't that evidence for the existence of souls? Isn't that scientific evidence for the existence of souls, where "scientific" here would refer to the universal and reproducible nature of the phenomenon?
It's true that we don't normally think of self-awareness in those terms, but there is no a priori reason not to.
As for your last question... I made a statement in passing that alluded to a distinction between facts and morality, and that distinction applies here. I don't think that science can be used to determine morality.
If science cannot be used to determine morality, then what can we use to determine morality? And what should we use to determine morality?
I think that these are much more important questions than whether or not we have souls or whether or not God exists. What say you, sir?
As for the good Professor Feynman, consider this.
In the aftermath of World War II, many people who worked to develop and manufacture the poison gas in the gas chambers were prosecuted and tried, and several were convicted of high crimes against humanity.
I would say that doing basic research in nuclear physics is qualitatively different from developing chemical weapons for an evil dictator. And yet... do we want absolve every scientist for all responsibility for the likely uses of the tremendous powers that they put at our disposal? Does a researcher working on a bomb today in Iran bear no responsibility for the nuking of Israel tomorrow? I believe he does bear responsibility.
Richard Feynman was a really smart cookie and he was a mensch to boot. Do you think it may have bothered him that he helped usher in an unprecedented arms race that could have led to a devastating nuclear confrontation during the Cold War? It strikes me as a heavy burden to bear.
Greg,
I very much like your definition of "hubris": a state of non-teachability. That's a pithy way of explaining what I was trying to explain about certainty sometimes leading to error.
I have a question about the relationship between faith and doubt. If true faith can only be tested in doubtful situations, then can certainty ever be justified? If yes, than how can certainty be justified?
Happy Substitutionary Atonement day folks!!
Looking forward to Resurrection Day here in North Georgia on Sunday.
God bless you all!!
Happy Substitutionary Atonement day folks!!
Looking forward to Resurrection Day here in North Georgia on Sunday.
God bless you all!!
Matthew:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the "justified" part of, can certainty be justified. I guess you mean, should we ever act as though we are certain.
Maybe this will answer your question.
By faith I don't mean something that you are reasoned into, though your reason may have to be placated for you to experience faith. By faith I mean something more like sight or touch or taste or smell, or hearing. A sensory organ of the spirit that senses spiritual things. A sense that the Bible refers to as the heart, or spirit and whose perception is called illumination or revelation or knowledge. Faith as the Bible uses it is the combination of that knowledge in your heart and action based on that knowledge. The carnal man receiveth not the the things of the spirit of God for they are spiritually discerned. We walk by faith not by sight, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. etc.
Sometimes people will say something like I won't believe it unless I can see it. Where spiritual things are concerned that's a bit like saying I don't believe in sour because I can't see it. Or I won't believe in the scent of orange blossoms because I can't see them. Faith, as I am using it, is the sensory perception of spiritual things. When I was born again I heard a preacher quote John 3:3 and I knew somewhere in my heart that I needed to be born again and then I acted on it. That is faith.
So that is how I approach your question about justifying certainty. I can be as certain about what I percieve spirituallly as about things I perceive visually. Emphasis on the "can", because just as you can have bad physical eyesight you can also have bad spiritual "eyesight."
If you have really bad eyesight you can be very uncertain about some things. I have a friend, a missionary to the palestinian people in Israel, who is legally blind. He can see some things. In fact he travels all over the world by himself working as a missionary. But you have to read a restuaraunt menu to him. His vision is not certain enough to allow him to safely cross a street. Most Christians have really bad spiritual eyesight and are therefore not justified in their spiritual certainty any more than my friend is justified in his visual certainty when crossing a busy street.
Now my friend could stand at curbside and conduct a philosophical exercise to determine whether or not it was safe to cross the street. He could come to some philosophical certainty with respect to the safeness of crossing the street but that is not the same as seeing that it is safe to cross the street. Most Christians are substituting philosophical certainty for actual spiritual insight. Most Christians are subsituting mental agreement for revelation.
Just as you can do excercises to improve your vision (I saw an ad yesterday for a Nintendo DS game that does just that.) you can also do exercises to improve your spiritual vision. Bible reading, praying, meditating in the Word, hearing Bible teaching and preaching are the exercises we do to improve our spiritual eyesight. The word of God is that which lets us know if our spiritual insight is good or bad. If what you perceive in you heart contradicts the word of God then your spiritual eyesight is bad.
So can certainty be justified? Only to the extent that certainty with respect to what you perceive with your physical senses can be justified.
I hope that doesn't sound too new agey because I certainly didn't mean it to sound that way.
Greg Marquez
goyomarquez@earthlink.net
Matthew,
If what I said led you to believe that I was thinking that you were scoffing then I'm not the one being defensive, and I'm certainly not being hostile. A person who specifically rejects the existence of the supernatural (of which souls and divinity and God are part and parcel) trying to compose reasoning as if they understand the mindset of a believer? You can attempt to argue from a religious perspective as a non-believer if you want, I just think it's not going to sound very convincing, even to a believer.
But what I was getting at was that when arguing about evolution with a non-religious person who rejects the supernatural, it is too easy for a rebuttal to sound mocking and condescending. So let's talk about physical evidence. Are you (or any other person arguing pro-evolution with an ounce of certitude) saying that of every type and species of creature to ever exist on the face of the earth, all or nearly all of them have been captured in fossilized form? Is it really wise to assume that because we don't currently have a fossilized record of every current species that exists that no fossilized forms of them exists? Perhaps they do, but nobody has found them yet? Perhaps they existed but have been destroyed by the onslaught of civilization?
Those are only just a handful of questions that raise doubts about evolution within my curious mind... and yet, I'm accused of rejecting evolution because it conflicts with my beliefs about the supernatural.
"Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz"
Good grief! You cite Horowitz's book as evidence of its own assertions? Horowitz is a right-wing ideologue just on the sane side of Ann Coulter.
Let's make this easy: name one secular liberal who is joined at the hip with Islamic fundamentalists. Remember, "joined at the hip" implies more than having in common a dispute with fundamentalist Christians.
If you can't back up your vile, reprehensible statement you should withdraw it. Your failure to acknowledge your sweeping slander of millions of Americans is appalling.
Hello again, Smm,
If what I said led you to believe that I was thinking that you were scoffing then I'm not the one being defensive, and I'm certainly not being hostile.
I had the impression that you thought that I was scoffing because that it what you said in comment 33:
[Matthew said:] "Three religious objections to evolution:"
"1) How did souls evolve? Do chimps and orangutans have souls? Do bacteria and moss have souls? Where along the line do souls kick in, and how?"
"2) Jesus was fully human and fully divine. So how could evolution lead to Mary's giving birth to God the Son? Something else was going on here, at least this one time."
[Smmtheory replies:] Matthew,
That is part of the reason why I do not argue about evolution from a religious perspective. It is too easy for non-believers to scoff at religious notions of souls, and divinity.
If I am wrong, and you didn't think I was scoffing, then you didn't write what you meant to say.
But what I was getting at was that when arguing about evolution with a non-religious person who rejects the supernatural, it is too easy for a rebuttal to sound mocking and condescending.
I agree. It's therefore important to write consistently in good faith, and that's why we both usually make an effort to do that.
Are you (or any other person arguing pro-evolution with an ounce of certitude) saying that of every type and species of creature to ever exist on the face of the earth, all or nearly all of them have been captured in fossilized form?
No, absolutely not. Not even close to a complete record.
Is it really wise to assume that because we don't currently have a fossilized record of every current species that exists that no fossilized forms of them exists?
Fossil-hunters don't assume anything when they go looking for fossils. A paleontologist would kill to find a fossil that would upset some consensual timeline of species-branching.
But scientific theories are based on the evidence we have, not on the evidence we might have if the evidence were different. That's not a question of wisdom versus foolishness. It's simply the only possible way of dealing with evidence.
Perhaps [fossils of current species] do [exist], but nobody has found them yet? Perhaps they existed but have been destroyed by the onslaught of civilization?
And perhaps God has edited my newspaper to trick me into thinking that Gov. Spitzer has resigned when he actually hasn't resigned. But I won't believe that unless someone tells me how he knows it. And you shouldn't expect me to believe your hypothetical about fossils unless there is some reason to believe it.
Those are only just a handful of questions that raise doubts about evolution within my curious mind... and yet, I'm accused of rejecting evolution because it conflicts with my beliefs about the supernatural.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily use the word "accuse", but you are, in fact, rejecting evolution because it conflicts with your beliefs about the supernatural.
And I'm not sure why you want to deny it. If evolution wasn't in conflict with your beliefs, you would say, "Yeah, sure, evolution" and not give it a second thought. It doesn't mean you're stupid or stubborn, you're just unwilling to accept something at face value that seems inconsistent with what you already believe.
It means your brain is awake and functioning, so you noticed that evolution raises some questions, and you, in turn, want to raise some questions about evolution. There's nothing wrong with that.
Greg,
Thank you very much for your response.
Although you weren't sure what I meant by asking if certainty could be justified, you were able to answer my question anyway.
I have heard your definition of faith elsewhere, but it is not the most common one, and I don't know if Joe would use it himself. If Joe is still paying attention to this comment thread, I would invite him to comment on your way of experiencing faith.
I think your notion of faith is very similar to the distinction Phasespace makes between the realms of science and theology. So maybe I was wrong when I said to Phasespace that his distinction didn't seem to resolve anything.
I cannot personally accept your faculty of faith for myself, because it is too intimately bound to the revelation of God, and I do not accept that revelation. But thank you again for explaining what faith means and how it can lead to certainty.
Cheers,
Matthew
A heads-up:
I just submitted a response to Greg and Smmtheory, but it is being held for moderation by Joe's spam filter.
"Now secular liberals and culturally conservative Muslims are united in their intense opposition to Bush's policies at home and abroad, especially in the Middle East."
From: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1558227,00.html
--------------
"The issue is why the left is so passive, reluctant, and even oppositional in its stance in the American war on terrorism. My answer is that the cultural left opposes the war against the radical Muslims because it wants them to succeed in defeating President Bush in particular and American foreign policy in general. Far from seeking to destroy the movement that Bin Laden and the Islamic radicals represent, the amazing fact is that the American left is secretly allied with that [Islamic] movement to undermine the Bush administration and American foreign policy. The left would like nothing better than to see America in general, and President Bush in particular, forced out of Iraq. Although such an outcome would plunge Iraq into further chaos and represent a catastrophic loss for American foreign policy, it would represent a huge win for the cultural left, in fact the left’s greatest foreign policy victory since the Vietnam War.
The notion that the American left seeks victory for Islamic radicals in Iraq may at first glance seem implausible. One person who does not think so, however, is Bin Laden. In his October 30, 2004 videotaped message, apparently timed to precede the presidential election, Bin Laden drew liberally from themes in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 to condemn the Bush administration. Bin Laden denounced Bush for election-rigging in Florida, for going to war to enrich oil companies and defense contracts like Halliburton, for curtailing civil liberties under the Patriot Act, and for reading stories to school-children while the World Trade Center burned. Apart from the rhetorical flourishes of “Praise be to Allah,” Bin Laden sounds exactly like Michael Moore. And why not? In opposing President Bush and American foreign policy, they are both on the same side.
Moreover, several leading figures on the left are very candid about what they are fighting for. Moore writes, “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘the enemy.’ They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win." Author James Carroll commends the insurgents for exemplifying “the simple stubbornness of human beings who refuse to be told what to think and feel.” Writing in salon.com, Joe Conason calls on Bush to enter into a “negotiated settlement” with the Iraqi insurgents, an outcome Conason concedes would be a “defeat for the United States and a perceived victory for Al Qaeda and its allies.” Gwyne Dyer states in a recent book, “The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently, the whole world needs the United States to lose the war in Iraq.” Activist Arundhati Roy declares on behalf of the left, “We must consider ourselves at war.” What she means is that the left is fighting a political battle not against Al Qaeda or Islamic fundamentalism but rather against the Bush administration.
From: http://dineshdsouza.com/books/enemy-intro.html
Well, that works for me, but only because I reject the notions of souls and a divine Jesus. I don't think that is going to be very satisfactory, however, to someone who does believe in souls and a divine Jesus.
True, but isn't that where faith is supposed to come in to play for a theist? In this case, it would seem to me, at least, that either theology doesn't understand the nature of faith, or churches aren't teaching their followers enough about faith and what it really means to have it. I've seen examples of both of these cases.
If a Christian feels that evolution is a challenge to the idea of souls or to the idea of a divine Jesus, he or she is going to want to reject that evolution is the only way things happen in this world. Just affirming that science and theology deal with different topics doesn't seem to me like any kind of resolution to the conflict.
Yes, but that's not our problem... ;) Well, it is our problem because theists are making it our problem, but they shouldn't be. Some theists are looking in the wrong place for the answer. I know that within theology there are two schools of thought on the provability of the existence of God. One says that the existence of God is provable in some fashion, the other says that this is a matter of faith (this is something of an oversimplification, but it gets the point across). The former group often, but not always, goes after evolution and unwittingly science in general, while the latter generally does not. So the real controversy is within theology itself and needs to be addressed there before it is ever considered outside that realm. A theistic attack on evolution would hold more weight if the underlying theology was at least consistent.
Now if we don't know how self-awareness has evolved, and if you even think it unlikely that we could ever know, then isn't that evidence for the existence of souls? Isn't that scientific evidence for the existence of souls, where "scientific" here would refer to the universal and reproducible nature of the phenomenon?
I wouldn't accept that as evidence because we do have a plausible, but unsubstantiated explanation. To accept a lack of an explanation of one thing as evidence for the existence of something else that may be entirely unrelated is a violation of parsimony. Something else required in addition to this.
If science cannot be used to determine morality, then what can we use to determine morality? And what should we use to determine morality?
Well, honestly, I think you already know my answer to this question. I'm going to say some form of utilitarianism (imperfect though that may be). This subject is indeed important, but, it really has been done to death on this blog previously and I think the subject is played out and there isn't anything to say on the subject now that hasn't already been said in previous threads. So for the sake of brevity, I don't want to take the morality tangent any further. I'm kind of tired of it to be honest.
So let's talk about physical evidence.
Let's not talk about the physical evidence, because the physical evidence is irrelevant to you, and you know it. The objections that you are listing have been refuted and rebutted repeatedly on numerous occasions.
ucfenger made a post a while back that I didn't get around to responding to where he said that the religious don't reject science out of hand. What they reject (and I would say what they are really afraid of) is materialism. I would agree with that assessment. However, that also means that all the frustration with science in general and evolution in particular is sorely misplaced. Christians are using science as a scapegoat because it's an easier and much more visible target than materialism itself. Indeed, tackling materialism has a number of uncomfortable implications that I don't think theologians want to deal with, like what is the connection between the material and spiritual, and how does God interact materially? Just to name two off the top of my head.
The issue is not about the science, the issue is about some Christian's inability to reconcile their theology with the findings of science. Nothing more, and nothing less. These objections are the intellectual equivalent of grabbing at straws under the pretense that such objections give this brand of theology a measure of protection from dealing with the harder questions. They don't. Yeah, I'm getting snarky, but I think its justified.
Phasespace,
... isn't that where faith is supposed to come in to play for a theist?
Yes, quite right, that is why I said to Greg in comment 50:
I think your notion of faith is very similar to the distinction Phasespace makes between the realms of science and theology. So maybe I was wrong when I said to Phasespace that his distinction didn't seem to resolve anything.
Yet, if someone does believe that God can be proven to exist, or that the Bible is true because there is solid materialistic evidence that it it true, then that person is not going to have the kind of theology which is going to be satisfied with a neat separation from the realm of science.
Since that kind of theology is where the attacks on evolution (or heliocentrism, or vaccinations, or what have you) are going to come from, it seems that you are asking us to resign ourselves to agree to disagree. From a practical point of view, maybe that is the best that can be hoped for, but I like to think that people shouldn't feel forced to give up on science because their religious beliefs seem to be contrary to it.
I wouldn't accept [self-awareness] as evidence [for souls] because we do have a plausible, but unsubstantiated explanation.
I agree.
To accept a lack of an explanation of one thing as evidence for the existence of something else that may be entirely unrelated is a violation of parsimony.
Hmmm... are you saying that self-awareness is entirely unrelated to souls?
Of course, that is tautologically true if we assume that souls don't exist. But if we don't assume the non-existence of souls, then that is a strange thing to assert. What could be more relevant to souls than self-awareness? We would look nowhere else for souls, other than somewhere where we find self-awareness.
And if we don't already have an explanation for self-awareness, then parsimony cannot be violated, because parsimony is a relative concept. One explanation (souls) cannot be less parsimonious than no explanation.
Until science produces an explicit explanation for self-awareness, it cannot claim to have a better explanation than religion.
Something else is required in addition to this.
Something else is required besides self-awareness to prove that souls exist, yes, I agree. But it is still a very intriguing mystery, and we cannot fault religious folks for being skeptical of reductionist materialism, can we?
Or, if Joe raises the biblical flag of Christ on his blog, perhaps the atheistic scientists can show some respect and humility. We can even acknowledge that his certainty has a genuine rationale for it beyond superstition and ignorance.
[The] subject [of morality] is indeed important, but, it really has been done to death on this blog previously and I think the subject is played out and there isn't anything to say on the subject now that hasn't already been said in previous threads. So for the sake of brevity, I don't want to take the morality tangent any further. I'm kind of tired of it to be honest.
I appreciate your morality-fatigue, it can be a most exhausting subject. Previous comment threads have indeed been awesomely long and occasionally very frustrating.
I would like to point out, though, that conversing in a comment thread is a very moral act, in the sense that it is an act which, naturally, falls under the purview of morality. Far from being a tangent, morality permeates everything we read and write on this or any other blog.
Comment threads about certainty, faith, skepticism, God, and so on are all well and good, but the bottom line, as I see it, is what is right and what is wrong. If we try to discuss something without keeping track of the morality angle, we are not missing a tangent, we are missing the headline event.
This comment thread is about certainty. Why do we care about certainty? Because we all want to know what is true and disavow what is false.
And why do we want knowledge of the truth? Partly to satisfy our curiousity, but just as importantly, to know and act upon what is right and what is wrong. Everything else, God, religion, materialism, Christianity, liberalism and conservatism, is just a matter of filling in the details.
The issue is not about the science, the issue is about some Christians' inability to reconcile their theology with the findings of science. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Science is a body of knowledge. It is also a very, very powerful tool. You seem to be assuming that a Christian is somehow dropping the ball if he is unable to reconcile his beliefs with science.
But when two apparent truths come into conflict, both propositions should be weighed on the merits. Science should not be assumed to be automatically correct. Science is not infallible, after all, and great religions represent an accumulated wisdom of many centuries of tradition.
These objections are the intellectual equivalent of grabbing at straws under the pretense that such objections give this brand of theology a measure of protection from dealing with the harder questions. They don't.
Maybe the objections represent grasping at straws, maybe they don't. But that is usually irrevelant. What is revelant is whether the objections have any merit.
If grabbing at straws happens to lead to a strand of truth, that strand of truth could just be the tip of a great iceberg. At the turn of the nineteenth century, the discovery of radioactivity led to a total revision of the scientific theory of matter. And that annoying, messy little problem of blackbody radiation led directly to the invention of quantum physics, which was more like a revolution in science than a revision.
A little humility sometimes goes a long way in science.
Yeah, I'm getting snarky, but I think its justified.
I think your snarkiness is justified if Smmtheory is being disingenuous. But I think he isn't being disingenuous, so I would say your snark might not be justified.
Rank your #1 choice for your Final Appeal to Authority among these 3 selections:
(1) Human Reason (eg. Science)
(2) Human Experience (eg. Feelings, emotions, intuition)
(3) The Bible (66 books - Canon of the Reformers)
----------
FWIW, I put the Divinely Inspired Word of God as #1.
Truth,
Rank your #1 choice for your Final Appeal to Authority among these 3 selections:
(1) Human Reason (eg. Science)
(2) Human Experience (eg. Feelings, emotions, intuition)
(3) The Bible (66 books - Canon of the Reformers)
What a great question!
I'd say that each of the three authorities can be very, very dangerous.
Human reason: dangerous, because it is so powerful, and can be used for either good or evil.
Human experience: dangerous, because it can lead to delusional certainty, which can lead to self-destruction, or worse.
The Bible: dangerous, because biblical religion is alive and well, including biblical fundamentalism (by which I mean belief in the literal truth of the Bible); and since biblical religion often has several important errors in doctrine or dogma (which vary from denomination to denomination), it too, at least historically, has occasioned great evil and destruction.
I'd also say that each of the three authorities is a source of great truth and wisdom. The best way to offset the dangers inherent in each authority is to be open to multiple sources. It is especially important to be open to the perspectives of a variety of people with differing points of view.
So here is how I would answer your question:
Best authority: a weighted amalgam of all available authorities.
Second best: science.
Third best: human experience (intuition) from multiple sources.
Fourth best: the Bible.
Fifth best: human experience (intuition) of one individual.
This is a very partial list. For example, I would put the U.S. Constitution and associated jurisprudence on the list below human experience and above the Bible.
phasespace,
Objections? Questions I say, and perhaps they have already been refuted and rebutted repeatedly on numerous occasions, but I haven't had a lot of time to read every little bit there is that might have. So when I ask these questions, all I get is snark. That leads me to believe that maybe they haven't been refuted and rebutted well enough, they just make you uncomfortable because you don't have the answers. Then when you get uncomfortable, you blame me and become condescending. And you say things like physical evidence is irrelevant to me. But I'm a doubting Thomas with respect to science theory. Physical evidence is relevant and important to me. I don't have it in front of me. I don't have a good explanation of it in front of me either, so here I am having somebody tell me I should just accept it because he believes it.
No, I am not rejecting evolution because it conflicts with my beliefs about the supernatural. What I am rejecting is the certitude that it is not just a theory. I've already told you how I've reconciled my beliefs of the supernatural and evolution. As I've said before, evolution may indeed be the tool God used to create us, but until I can say for sure that is true... evolution is JUST a theory. Why is that such a big deal to people that they have to tell me that I'm denying or rejecting evolution?
Joe,
Isn't it time to repent?
Isn't it?
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2008/wndhomeschool.html
You used to work for Wingnut Daily. (I don't actually follow you that much, maybe you still do.)
But your "certainty," like theirs, perhaps leads them to publish things without fact checking them.
Like when you said it was highly likely that Obama didn't write his speech.
Despite what the facts said.
Isn't it time to come clean?
And not be thought of as a scurrilous liar?
The same as the worst kind of abortionist, according to your religion?
Isn't it time to repent?
Smmtheory,
If I say, it's possible that gravity is a universal inverse-square law between masses, but I'm not sure, then I could also say I'm not rejecting the fact of gravity, I just consider it an unproven theory.
However, that doesn't really make any sense from a scientist's point of view. The law of gravity is a proven fact of nature, not just a theory. If I consider it to be an "unproven theory", I'm just revealing my ignorance about what the law of gravity really is.
Likewise with your dismissal of evolution as an unproven theory, as opposed to a fact.
On the other hand, if you wanted to dismiss the theory of evolution through natural selection as unproven, you would be on firmer ground. A scientist would probably still think you're hopelessly ignorant, but he wouldn't necessarily think you're confused about what a scientific theory, as opposed to a scientific fact, is.
And the truth is, you're skeptical about evolution because of your religious beliefs. If evolution had nothing to do with religion, you'd have no reason to bother thinking about it other than as in interesting fact about nature.
The reason I'm stubborn about this point is because evolution is so well established, you might as well be arguing against gravity, or the evaporation of water, or the theory of electric currents. Sometimes it really is possible to be just plain wrong about something, and you've succeeded in doing so.
Respectfully,
Matthew
Alright, Smmtheory, I'm dubious about your honesty here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The questions that you are asking read like longstanding canards and as such it's difficult not to treat them as such....
Are you (or any other person arguing pro-evolution with an ounce of certitude) saying that of every type and species of creature to ever exist on the face of the earth, all or nearly all of them have been captured in fossilized form?
Nope, and no paleontologist says this either, but we don't need to see every fossil to be able to see a pattern of development. The pattern building works in a way similar to how we can interpolate between points on a graph by drawing a line through them. In fact, the tiktaalik fossil that was found within the last couple of years was found in exactly this way. Some paleontologists examined the fossil record and realized that they should see a species similar to tiktaalik within certain types of rocks of a certain age. They then organized a search in areas where these rocks were known to be and then started looking. In other words, they were able to use evolutionary theory to make a prediction, and then go out into the field to see if that prediction could be verified and it was.
Is it really wise to assume that because we don't currently have a fossilized record of every current species that exists that no fossilized forms of them exists? Perhaps they do, but nobody has found them yet? Perhaps they existed but have been destroyed by the onslaught of civilization?
I don't think your question is posed quite right, but I think I get the gist of what you are trying to get at. Essentially you're saying that since we haven't (and could not have) looked everywhere, there's a chance that we could find modern fossils at a time when, say, evolution predicts that we should only see invertebrates. Does that capture what you're trying to get at?
The problem with this is that pattern of development that I mentioned above. If there are such breaks in the fossil record, chances are we would've seen them by now, and we would have abandoned evolutionary theory as a result, but we haven't seen any such breaks. So, we have concluded that such fossils don't exist for the same reason that after you hold up a ball and let it go several times, you can safely conclude that the next time you do the same thing, the ball is going to behave in the same way. In other words, it's very unlikely that such a break in the fossil record actually exists. Even though there are many holes in the fossil record, the holes are in fact small enough that if there were strange breaks such as what you are alluding to, then it's a practical certainty that we would have seen something of them by now. That doesn't mean that there are no surprises still waiting to be found. In fact, I'm certain that there are, but its extremely unlikely that these surprises are going to stray outside the limitations set by evolutionary theory.
Indeed, tackling materialism has a number of uncomfortable implications that I don't think theologians want to deal with, like what is the connection between the material and spiritual, and how does God interact materially? Just to name two off the top of my head.
Try as a I might, I just don't see this as a problem for Christian theologians. I can't speak for other religions, but the story of Christianity is how God interacts with Man. I really think this is a bigger problem for materialists, because materialists act is if there is an objective morality, but one can't exist in a strictly material world.
The issue is not about the science, the issue is about some Christian's inability to reconcile their theology with the findings of science.
I can't speak for other Christians but my problem with materialism is not that I can't reconcile the science, I have no problem with it. What I can't reconcile is the existence of any sort of objective morality in a strictly material world.
Science is the study of what is. If you say there is no God as a given. You destroy the Science you Worship. If you out of hand reject a molecular Biologist who poses some very good questions because his answers are drawing conclusions that may point to other than natural selection because of your faith in Natural Selection are you not acting like Theologians 150 years ago instead of Scientist. I see academics in huge numbers opposing hypothesis and theory on religious reasons. The only acceptable way to oppose natural selection for most is to present as Gould did an even more weird form of it. Darwin today in a hundred years will be just another form of flat earth theory.
PS: Christians must value and love all People made in the Image of God. It is ridiculous and a cartoon sterotype that says christians think less or whant harm for those that disagree. As Paul points out clearly we are no better or worse. He was the chiefest of sinners.
Ucfengr,
I would like to address your objection to materialism on the grounds of a lack of objective morality.
Unfortunately, I don't have time this weekend to give a full response due, ironically, to the Easter holiday. (We celebrate pagan/atheistic versions of Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, and so on in our home. "Saint" Patrick's Day we celebrate as a kind of Irish wake for the demise of traditional Celtic/Druidic folkways.)
Very short answer: morality is the only logical way to deal with other people, and that is true due both to objective logic and objective facts about people and our world.
Now logic will never be good enough for some people, so the logical moralists will need to enforce their morality on those who, for various reasons, decline to comply or participate, but that is not an insurmountable problem.
Happy Easter, friend and sensei!
Very short answer: morality is the only logical way to deal with other people, and that is true due both to objective logic and objective facts about people and our world.
That really doesn't address my objection.