Paradigms and Genesis
I used to be very sympathetic to progressive creationism and even theistic evolution, but as time goes on, I see more and more problems with these two views, problems which have begun to outweigh the problems that they solve. Neither represents the face-value reading of the scriptures, and both introduce confusing theological issues, namely those concerning sin and death. I have recently added another, and that is the explanation for why God is silent and/or invisible. Finally, in employing these arguments, we seem to run the risk of our faith dying “the death of a thousand qualifications (A. Flew)”.
For these reasons, I am being persuaded that the best option from the theological standpoint is young earth creationsim. Of course, this introduces a whole range of new problems, but these are scientific rather than theological. In fact, the scientific problems introduced are so radical that a scientific understanding of Genesis may require a Kuhnian paradigm shift.
Of course, efforts are underway to bring the two in line through the current paradigm, and perhaps they will succeed, but as I think about the sheer magnitude of the particular issues: radiometric dating, flood geology, evolution, I can’t help but think that a paradigm shift is required. A scientific understanding of the evidence from the Genesis perspective would seem to require a very different way of looking at the evidence.
This is the essence of the paradigm shift–a change in worldview. Dramatic shifts have occurred in the past, in fact Kuhn argued powerfully that they are coincident with major scientific revolutions. Such a shift could bring Genesis in line with the scriptures.
I suppose we could say that the current disagreement of Genesis with the Scriptures may be a artifact of the current scientific paradigm. But of course this requires that the history of science is Kuhnian, rather than truly progressive: that science is not progressing toward a clearer and clearer picture of “reality”, but is rather shifting between different ways of looking at the world, each of which is good for solving the types of problems upon which it chooses to focus.
That this may be true is evident from reading Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and it is interesting to note the problems that our current paradigm does not address or cannot solve.
Why is God invisible?
As you can tell from my recent blogs, I have been struggling with my faith for some time now–actually for about two years. For the past couple of days, I have been trying to boil it all down. I imagined that it came down to two issues for me: what reason do I have to believe, and how can I live my life without believing?
The first question is the logical place to start. I know there is evidence for Christianity (though the other side will always contradict it), so what is my problem? Is it just that the evidence is not strong enough? It occurred to me that there was one question that gnawed at me: Why is God silent? Why is He invisible? Why does He hide himself (Is 45:15)?
As I thought on this yesterday, and looked for answers in the Bible, I began to despair of finding the answer, but then it suddenly occurred to me that the Bible did answer this question. According to the Bible, God once did walk with man, and talk to him… in the garden.
“But your iniquities have separated you from your God (Is 59:2a)”
Did Brave Buffalo invent God?
I recently read a post by Kushal called “What made God?” It got me thinking again about some Native American quotes I had read, and I wanted to share them. It is often claimed that mankind invented the idea of God or gods in order to explain things they could not understand. There may be some truth to that, but I think there is more to it. I think these quotes shed interesting light on this topic. They are from the excellent collection of Native American quotes compiled by T. C. McLuhan, Touch the Earth.
“When I was ten years of age I looked at the land and the rivers, the sky above, and the animals around me and could not fail to realize that they were made by some great power. I was so anxious to understand this power that I questioned the trees and the bushes. It seemed as though the flowers were staring at me, and I wanted to ask them ‘Who made you?’.”
Tatanka-ohitika (Brave Buffalo), Sioux, 1911
“When a man does a piece of work that is admired by all we say that it is wonderful, but when we see the changes of day and night, the sun, moon, and stars in the sky, and the changing seasons upon the earth, with their ripening fruits, anyone must realize that it is the work of some one more powerful than man.”
Mato-Kuwapi (Chased-by-Bears), Sioux, pre-1915
I think that these quotes do not fit the typical explanation of man’s invention of God. I do not think that Brave Buffalo and Chased-by-Bears (an interesting name) were inventing God. These two natives do not seem to be inquiring about explanations. They seem to have an intuitive sense that there is a person behind nature. Somehow they realized that these things were made by a “Who.” It would seem that they saw some intimation of personality, a “who-ness,” in the things that are made.
This doesn’t fit the typical naturalistic explanation, but it does fit Paul’s explanation. Paul stated in his letter to the Romans: ”what may be known of God is manifest in [men], for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened (Romans 1:19-21; NKJV).”
And in Acts 14, Paul explained it this way…
“‘Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.’ “
Why the bias against the supernatural?
There is evidence on both sides, but it seems that all of the evidence for Christianity can be “explained away” with alternative, naturalistic explanations. At least, it seems that whenever Christians think they have found something that cannot be explained by science, science eventually finds an alternative explanation. When this happens, it seems to negate the evidence for Christianity. Why?
Do we have a natural preference for naturalistic (naturalism: the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual (dictionary.com)) explanations? It seems clear that we approach the evidence with naturalistic presuppositions. Is this justified? Why do we have a preference for what we can see, hear, and touch?
But that’s not even it. Most scientific explanations are not like that: we can’t see, feel, or touch quantum mechanics or relativity. Sure, we can test them, but we initially believed them with very little evidence. And what about multiverse theory? It has become very popular among physicists, but it can never be tested. Why is this explanation preferable to God? I suppose it is still in terms of things I can see, universes and such. I can see this universe (though not the whole thing) and it is reasonable that there may be more.
But it is deeper than this. I can’t see gravity. What is “natural” is not what I can see, but rather what predictable, and regular.
But not quantum mechanics. It is not “predictable” in the strict sense. But is is testable. It can be touched, seen, and felt, though indirectly. Evolution is like this as well: it can only be tested indirectly–we see fossils, use radioactivity to estimate ages, compare DNA sequences. So is the big bang. So are most things in modern science.
So is Christianity. It can be tested indirectly. God can be felt, seen, and heard indirectly.
So why the preference?
It almost seems that the “natural” is best defined as “anti-supernatural”. We prefer explanations that do not invoke a personality behind the universe, only impersonal objects and forces acting of their own accord. Why is this?
The Faith-Reason Continuum?
From the scôp : Faith and reason lie along a continuum.
“…those who ‘practice’ reason can exercise great conviction even in the face of uncertainty…Conversely, through reason some have come to a faith stance.
…is faith and reason then a continuum of the same faculty?
He writes that…
Belief is necessary because as both Kierkegaard and Kant assert theoretical reason has its limitations…
Despite these limitations as noted by philosophers back to, at least, the 4 century C.E., individuals on each side speak and act dogmatically—one from faith and the other supposedly from reason. Surely, this is evident on the Christian side of the fence…
This said, it cannot be ignored that the secularists, too, demonstrate this very same inflexible attitude. Listening to a Dawkins or Hitchens debate, one is struck by the smugness and air of certainty professed—an absolutism that there is no God.
How is it then that world-views of such divergence all express dogmatic ideology despite their lack of certainty except by means of faith? The fact that this faith is demonstrated across the spectrum seems to imply that faith is indeed related to reason in some form or fashion.
What would this continuum look like?
The [scientific method], though invaluable does not in and of itself give one enough confidence to risk, in fact it encourages recursive verification to reduce risk.
The SM appears to be the first two requirements of biblical faith, namely knowledge that produces assent; ultimately, though, knowledge must lead to an actionable decision to risk to be of any practical value.
And…
“Kierkegaard writes of belief that it “is not a knowledge but an act of freedom, an expression of will.” (PF, 83) Belief or faith then, is what one does with knowledge and reason as an exercise of one’s will in response to it; it “is the category of decision.” (CUP, 99)
In this way, the scôp suggests that “Faith and Reason like conjoined twins risk death if separated from each other. “
This is an interesting perspective.
Some questions in my mind as I read his post were: Is faith passive or active? If it is an act of the will, then what, exactly, is the role of reason? I suppose that reason provides a level of confidence such that one can act on it, the springboard, as it were. But is faith the jumping off, or is faith the confidence to jump? Is the faith the same as this confidence, or is it the act of decision?
The question that I have been asking for a while is this: can we will faith? By “faith” I mean confidence.
Science Involves Faith
Science involves faith. How so? Well, in order to “know” anything, we must make a subjective “leap of faith.” I think this was established by Kierkegaard (see my post, “Musing with Kierkegaard), but I also think it would be appropriate to delve a bit more deeply into the subject. Why is there a need for faith in science? We have already seen what S.K. had to say. let’s look at another influential philosopher: Michael Polanyi.
In his book “Personal knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy”, Polanyi disassembles the view that we can build a complete picture of the world through objective observation and empirical investigation. His work was decisive, and closely related to the idea of faith, as you will see. Before I get into his arguments, a couple of definitions may be in order. For the purposes of this post, objective means”not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased (dictionary.com)”. Subjective means “existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (dictionary.com)”. A subject is “that which thinks, feels, perceives, intends, etc., as contrasted with the objects of thought, feeling, etc. (dictionary.com)”.
Polanyi points to several lines of evidence that suggest that it is impossible for science to be totally objective, rather it is impossible to remove the subjective elements. First, he points out that scientists do not accept theories solely on the basis of how well they fit the evidence. The Ptolemaic system worked as well as the Copernican system, but was rejected because subjective factors attracted people to the Copernican way. Likewise, scientists ignored Miller’s contradiction of the Michelson-Morely Experiment, not on objective grounds, but based on a subjective preference for Einstein’s theory: its “rationality”. We cannot replace this subjective element with ideas like “simplicity”, notes Polanyi. “Simplicity” is a smoke screen so we don’t have to acknowledge the subjective element. Is Quantum Mechanics simple?
Secondly, he discusses the concept of probability. He notes that “supposedly science aims to produce a complete intellectual control over experience in terms of precise rules which can be formally set out and empirically tested… we would be relieved of personal judgement.” This, however, is impossible. He starts with the closest science has come to this ideal: classical mechanics. Classical mechanics can supposedly predict the future, but input data are not the facts of experience, but rather readings or measurements with associated random error and skill-related systematic error.
How these errors are dealt with or interpreted is a matter of personal judgement. They may be called anomalies, as were certain irregularities in the orbits of the planets before the discovery of Neptune. They may, of course, be dealt with by applying some sort of rule, and this rule is a matter of personal judgement. Statistics is a method of dealing with these uncertainties in a systematic way, in an effort to increase objectivity. But the statistical limits are matters of personal judgement. For example, will we accept the hypothesis if there is 5% uncertainty? How about 10%? Even the procedures we use to calculate the uncertainties are based on methods and criteria developed using personal judgement. We compare the difference between two means with the range of accidental variations which appear to occur in our sample, and the means will be accepted as truly different only if the difference exceeds the range of natural variation. But the “range of natural variation” that is used as a criteria must be selected using personal judgement. Perhaps it is not my judgement, maybe I use someone else’s value, but it is judgement nonetheless. And what about the “natural range of variation”? Where did it come from? From observations and experiments made by people whose methods were chosen using their personal judgement.
In order to communicate this idea to my students, I pass around a graduated beaker of water and have each student write down their measurement of how much water is in the beaker. I write all of their measurements on the board: they typically vary by more than ten milliliters. Then I ask them “How much water is in the beaker?”
The truth is we can never know with 100% certainty. The best we can do is say something like, “52 plus or minus 2 mL.” That is better, but even the plus or minus 2 is not totally objective. How did we get that value? Is it the range? The average uncertainty? The standard deviation? Now, this value, the volume of water in the beaker is supposedly an objective observation, a “fact”, but do we “know” how much water is in the beaker? Do we even know that it is within a our cited range? Yet this value, this volume, may be used to formulate or test a theory. All theories are tested with observations that include elements of personal bias and judgement. In addition, theories are evaluated on the basis of subjective elements, as described above. We simply cannot remove these subjective influences from science.
A closely related phenomena is the way in which we discern order in the midst of randomness. Polanyi uses, as an illustration, the words “Welcome to Wales” written with pebbles on a hillside. Imagine the arrangement of pebbles becoming more and more disordered. At what point do we cease to recognize it as an ordered arrangement, different from randomness? This is a subjective judgement. the example I give my students is similar: if I look up into the sky and see a line of three stars, I do not doubt that their alignment is due to random chance. But if I look up and see ten stars in a line, or 25, that is a different story. But how do I draw the line? Only with personal judgement.
This is analogous to a linear regression. Are two sets of observations related or not? When we do a linear regression we use pre-selected rules to decide for us when we have a linear relationship and when we don’t. But, of course, we choose the criteria. We choose the rule. What is the minimum r-squared value we will accept?
In fact, all observations involve this kind of separation of the observation from background noise, and so all observations involve this kind of subjective judgement.
Lastly, Polanyi treats the idea of skills. “Skills cannot be accounted for in terms iof their particulars.” We swim without being able to say how. Scientific measurements and observations involve skills. Some of these skills are passed down from generation to generation of scientist. Our measurements and observations are inextricably tied to the skills and tools we use to get them. This is painfully obvious to high school chemistry teacher. The measurements my students get and the measurements I get are often vastly different. They are colored by this fourth subjective element.
So, what does any of this have to do with faith? Polanyi was concerned with how to “achieve a frame of mind in which I may hold firmly to what I believe to be true, even though I know that it may conceivably be false.” Sounds like faith to me. I must admit I have not gotten all of the way through the book yet. I’m not sure how he resolves the issues that I outlined above. But here is how I resolve them.
For one thing, his arguments imply that we cannot know anything from science with 100% certainty. Thus, to “believe” any theory or interpretation must involve a leap. In my mind, Polanyi has demonstrated that we can “know” nothing through science without a subjective “judgement”. This judgement is the only way to bridge the gap between uncertainty and certainty. It is a leap. It is not a groundless, completely irrational leap, of course. But then, neither is the Christian faith.
I am not claiming that it is identical to Christian faith, only that it is a kind of “faith”.
Of course, I’m not sure we needed Polanyi’s treatment. Kierkegaard did a fine job when he spoke of “the system (see “Musing…”)”.
Why Faith?
A reader of my previous post “The Foolishness of God” asked,
Why do you think it’s so important to come to faith?
I think that is a good question. It is possible that Kierkegaard had the answer:
If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the foundation of all there lay only a wildly seething power which writhing with obscure passions produced everything that is great and everything that is insignificant, if a bottomless void never satiated lay hidden beneath all — what then would life be but despair? If such were the case, if there were no sacred bond which united mankind, if one generation arose after another like the leafage in the forest, if the one generation replaced the other like the song of birds in the forest, if the human race passed through the world as the ship goes through the sea, like the wind through the desert, a thoughtless and fruitless activity, if an eternal oblivion were always lurking hungrily for its prey and there was no power strong enough to wrest it from its maw — how empty then and comfortless life would be!
Maybe that’s it. Or maybe it’s just that faith is always necessary, since 100% certainty in anything is impossible. Or maybe I can’t live my life without it. Or maybe it’s something else. Or maybe it is just there: the need.
Musing on Faith with Kierkegaard
I’ve been thinking about faith a lot lately, whether or not I can “will” faith. I turned to Kierkegaard.
Can I come to God through reason and evidence? No, I can only get stuck in an “approximation process.”
“The existing individual who chooses to pursue the objective way enters upon the entire approximation process by which it is proposed to bring God to light objectively. “
This is exactly what I have been trying to do: bring God to light objectively. It is not possible.
“But this is in all eternity impossible, because God is a subject, and therefore exists only for subjectivity in inwardness. The existing individual who chooses the subjective way apprehends instantly the entire dialectical difficulty in all its painfulness, because he must use God at that very moment, since every moment is wasted in which he does not have God (211-212). “
I can feel this. It’s I’m looking at God across a canyon. I can’t reach him, but need him. But Kierkegaard says there is a solution.
”While one man investigates objectively the problem of immortality, and another embraces an uncertainty with the passion of the infinite, where is there most truth, and who has the greater certainty? The one has entered upon a never-ending approximation, for the certainty of immortality lies precisely in the subjectivity of the individual; the other is immortal, and fights for his immortality by struggling with the uncertainty (212-213).”
There is no question that certainty is impossible via the objective path. That path can never quite get you there.
“I shall be willing as the next man to fall down and worship before the System, if only I can manage to set eyes on it… Once or twice I have been on the verge of bending the knee. But at the last moment… I made a trusting appeal to one of the initiated who stood by: “Tell me now sincerely, is it entirely finished…?” I always received the same answer: “No, it is not yet quite finished.” And so there was another postponement–of the system, and of my homage.
System and finality are the same, so much so that if the system is not finished, there is no system… A system that is not quite finished is an hypothesis… (195).”
But…
“What if, instead of talking about an absolute beginning, we talked about a leap. To be content with a ‘mostly’, an ‘as good as’, a ‘you could almost say that’… suffices merely to betray a kinship with Trop, who, little by little, reached the point of assuming that almost having passed his examinations was the same as having passed them. We all laugh at this, but when philosophers reason in the same manner, in the kingdom of truth and in the sanctuary of science, then it is good philosophy, genuine speculative philosophy.
Lessing was no speculative philosopher; hence he assumed the opposite, namely, that an infinitesimal difference makes the chasm infinitely wide, because it is the leap itself that makes the chasm infinitely wide (200).”
I can’t bridge the chasm with logic and evidence. But how do I make the leap?
“Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. ‘You of little faith,’ he said, ‘why did you doubt?’”
The above quotes are from the Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific postcript to the Philosophical Fragments, in: Bretall, Robert. A Kierkegaard Anthology. Modern Library, New York. 1946.
The Foolishness of God
How do I believe? Is it through logical analysis of the evidence? I ask for signs. I look for wisdom, but… I hear Paul:
…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1 Cor 1:19-24
Through the foolishness of the message preached…
Can I come to faith through logic and evidence? Apparently not. So how do I come to it? Through the foolishness of the message preached? I want to believe, but am having trouble with it. What can I do? Just wait? Is faith a subjective inclination that must be implanted in me, or can I take some initiative? Can I “will” faith?
Tossed by the Wind
I have been full of doubts. They come and go like the tide. It is as if I have been oscillating, fluctuating between Christianity and faithlessness. These oscillations have a frequency on the order of of a few minutes. I have been like a man walking a knife edge, and wobbling back and forth in the wind.
Last night I realized that I was the man in James 1: “he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind (James 1:5b).”
But what can I do? James seems to imply that there is something I can do. I have already established that faith is a subjective inclination, but it also seems passive. Can it be active? Is it possible to will faith? Is it possible to “will away” doubts?
“he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind (James 1:5b).”
James continues: “That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.”
Double-minded. That’s me. What can I do? My only hint, later in James:
“Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded (James 4:8).”
