Why atheism is impractical
I have been thinking a lot lately about how to build an atheistic ethic. Sure, I can see how one could try to live so as to maximize one’s own pleasure or sense of fulfillment, and one could argue that a traditional ethic is the best way to do this, etc., etc. But I’m just not seeing it. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think so. If there is no God and no immortality, then I cannot see a way to develop a satisfying ethic, a meaningful rule of life.
It seems to me that things like honor, justice, and love disintegrate without God and immortality. They become the motions of atoms and molecules. I have even tried to imagine how they might be more than that in a materialistic universe. Perhaps, I have thought, they “emerged” from materialistic processes, but have become something more, a higher order, higher level law, but this to is unsatisfying. I don’t find it compelling that I should be “ethical” because some impersonal higher law demands it.
Granted, I may want to be ethical if that is the way to live with the most fulfillment or pleasure, but that is where it stops and that is all there is to it. For some reason I find an ethic that arises from a personal creator who will reward me in this life and the next for ethical behavior, and with whom I can have a personal relationship, to be much more satisfying.
Of course, none of this proves or disproves atheism and theism, but neither is it without value in considering the options.
Presuming Atheism?
It is no wonder that the scientific community eschews Intelligent Design. Nor is it any wonder that they find no “evidence” for God through “science”. The current scientific paradigm is founded upon the presupposition of naturalism/materialism. Naturalistic explanations are always seen as preferable to supernatural, no matter how far-fetched the natural explanations are. In fact, the supernatural can never be invoked, it is ruled out by definition.
This has a couple of consequences. First, a person devoted to the current paradigm will never see evidence of God. Secondly, the seeker of God should not expect to find evidence using the current scientific paradigm. This is not to say there can be no evidence, only that the current scientific system rules it out by definition.
The Bible claims that there is “evidence”, but certainly does not endorse the “scientific” worldview.
What does this mean? The scientist looks at some event or object and is restricted by his paradigm to seek a naturalistic explanation. he may claim that he would believe in a supernatural one if it were impossible to find a natural one, but this is simply not true. He would never believe this, because the current paradigm of science seeks only naturalistic explanations, and any failure to find one only results in a patient wait for a future success. Thus, there can never be any evidence for God. Likewise, if some event in his life seems to indicate the touch of a personal being on his life, he will of course suppose it to be mere coincidence or a psychological phenomenon. he must do this, if he is committed to the paradigm.
The “natural” is really just code for “not-supernatural”, or rather, not caused by a divine person.
What if we were all wrong?
What if our current scientific view is all wrong? It’s happened before. James Clerk Maxwell once wrote that “the ether was the best confirmed entity in the whole of physical theory (Polkinghorne, John. Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction, p. 4)”.
In fact, there is no assurance that science provides an accurate picture of reality at all, or that it “progresses” toward a clearer and clearer picture of “reality”. Science works from within the prevailing paradigm of the day, a paradigm that dictates the questions that are allowed to be asked, and the methods used for solving them (Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). The progress of science toward clearer and clearer pictures of reality is an illusion created by the fact that the scientific community believes this. The scientific community perceives itself as ever progressing toward the “truth”, and so whenever changes in methodology or theory become accepted by the community, they are seen as progress.
If, for example, I accept quantum mechanics as the only way to find truth about atoms and sub-atomic particles, then anywhere the quantum mechanical method seems to be leading will appear as progress. QM will delimit the scope of inquiry, identify the problems to be solved, and dictate the methods acceptable for solving them. When QM successfully solves such problems, “progress” occurs. When QM overcame classical mechanics, it appeared to be progress because it opened up a broad new area of inquiry, and addressed problems that were outside the scope of classical mechanics. The illusion was strengthened by the fact that it could be made to fit with the now defunct, but still useful, classical theory. QM “works” not because it is closer to the truth, but because it is a package, complete with its own problems to be solved. And don’t forget, the Ptolomeic system of astronomy worked as well as the Copernican (Polanyi, Personal Knowledge), even the phlogiston theory of combustion worked well for many applications.
And as far as “working” is concerned, that really has more to do with the engineers than the scientific theory. I don’t think it was physicists who got us to the moon, but engineers. If scientists are involved in such processes, such as the Manhattan project, then they are doing engineering, not science. They develop equations and methods that work, regardless of how “true” they are.
So, it is quite possible that our current scientific understanding is all wrong, and this includes our understanding of evolution and the history of the earth. The truth may entail a very different paradigm.
Nehamiah’s Wall, Revisited
When I wrote my first post regarding Nehemiah’s Wall, I lacked a few interesting details. From Daniel 9:24-26 (NAS):
“Seventy ’sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. ”Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ’sevens,’ and sixty-two ’sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ’sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.
Taking the “sevens” to be seven years, Daniel says that there will be 483 years from the issuing of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the time when the Messiah is killed. Since the Jewish calender consisted of 12, 30-day months, this is equivalent to 476 of our years.
Nehemiah 2 records the decree of Artaxerxes, issued in that king’s twentieth year:
And I said to the king, “If it please the king, let letters be given me for the governors of the provinces beyond the River, that they may allow me to pass through until I come to Judah, and a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the fortress which is by the temple, for the wall of the city and for the house to which I will go ” And the king granted them to me because the good hand of my God was on me.
Atrazerxes’ reign began in 464 B.C. (according to the Harper Atlas of the Bible, 1987), which puts the decree at 444 B.C. This decree is not to be confused with that of Cyrus, who decreed the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem at an earlier date (586 B.C.?).
The 444 B.C. date for the decree puts the date of the Messiah’s death at 32 AD, or right about the time of Christ’s crucification.
The book of Daniel was found among the famous Dead Sea scrolls, and cannot be dated after 125 B.C., even by critical scholars (Price, Randall. 1996. Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls). Of course, conservative Biblical scholars claim it is from the sixth century BC, which is what the book itself seems to claim. Liberal scholars cannot accept such an early date because they cannot accept the existance to true prophecy. Daniel contains detailed prophecies about the empires of Persia, Greece, and Rome. In any case, it predates the coming of Christ by more than 150 years.
Lust, the problem with theistic evolution
Sin. That’s the problem with theistic evolution and progressive creationism. For simplicity, let’s focus on sexual lust. Sexual lust, defined in the Ten Commandments as coveting your neighbors wife, is clearly a “natural” phenomena. Just look at the rut of the whitetail deer, some bucks don’t even take time to eat when the does are in heat! They battle other males and chase does in a frenzy of lust. Of course, this scenario is repeated throughout the animal kingdom. Interestingly, the Bible also refers to sin as “natural”:
But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic (James 3:14-15, NAS).
I am aware that there are ways that this can be reconciled with old earth creationism or theistic evolution. Perhaps the story of Adam and Eve refers to the time when god made man aware of himself and his will, and that is when lust became sin.
If lust occured before the fall, even in pre-humans, then we lust, not because of the fall, but because of our physiology, and because of millions of years of evolutionary genetic conditioning. We sin, not because of the fall, but because it has been part of us forever. We sin, not because we have inherited a “sin” nature, but because we were made that way. Sin entering the world then refers only to the commandment entering the world. This hardly seems the Biblical picture. Did God come to man and proclaim that what he had always done ammorally was now to be considered immoral? Did God come to already lustful creatures, so conditioned by millions of years of habit, and condemn them because they could not overcome the conditioning, conditioning that he oversaw? Or did he suddenly reveal to man the immorality of their nature, and proclaim that if he could not overcome it, he would be condemned?
This is the quagmire into which we plunge with theistic evolution and progressive creationsim. Only young earth creationism, Biblical literalism, can save us from this fate. God made Adam innocent, with the true ability to choose, without lust, and yet he turned to it. And lust, which had theretofore existed only in satan and the demons, entered the world, and spread to the animals.
God, evident?
How do we know God exists? Maybe Romans 1 has the answer:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, 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…”
According to Paul, God has revealed himself in a general yet foolproof way through his creation. The phrase “in them” here could also be translated “among them,” so it does not necessarily refer to some inward revelation, and the rest of the passage seems to indicate an interaction between men and creation, men observing creation.
Paul seems to be saying that certain things about God, which must include his existence, are evident to men when they look at creation. This is not to say that there is 100% proof, because in Hebrews Paul says that “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Of course, we can know nothing for certain, and all “knowledge” involves some degree of faith, as I have previously discussed. Paul must be saying that there God has revealed himself fully enough that we should believe. This seems evident when one considers the prevalence of religion around the world and through history. Some interesting quotes of Native Americans on this topic can be found here.
I think it is clear that, on its face, the universe gives one the impression that it was created by an intelligent being. This fact is often admitted even by atheists.
So why don’t we? If all of this is true, then why don’t I automatically believe when I look at creation? Why is my mind filled with doubts, questions, and ideas about evolution and an impersonal, mechanical universe?
Paul’s answer is in the next verses of Romans 1:
“…because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Himas God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. “
Instead of acknowledging God (a concept Paul uses later in Romans 1), we start speculating about alternative explanations (the NASB renders this “they became futile in their speculations”), and our hearts become darkened. This darkening of the heart is probably referring to spiritual blindness, an inability to see things as they really are: a paradigm shift. Paul also refers to this as “suppressing the truth.”
A Violent Grace*
I was watching a video of a Hitchens debate on YouTube the other day, and I was struck by how vitriolic Hitchen’s was, especially when he discussed the atonement. This was very interesting to me. Why the hatred? Why such venom?
Last night I saw this picture of Jesus, and it reminded me of this. I thought about the crucifiction. It is the heart of Christianity.
And it is violent. It is bloody. Even horrific.
But it is the heart.
We shrink back:
Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed (Is 53:3b-5).
And that last part is key. Hitchens didn’t like that either. Offensive. The idea of one man paying for anothers sins. Immoral, he said. The whole thing is offensive!
…a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall (Is 8:14)
But yet it is strangely attractive, like a flame to this moth. Hitchens calls us sadists and masochists, but he’s missed the point. Violence is at the very heart of nature: red in tooth and claw. It has been since the garden. Since the garden. Violence is necessary because of sin. It is not pleasant. We do not lust after it. But sometimes it is necessary. Sometimes war is necessary. In his science fiction novel, Perelandra, C. S. Lewis addresses this issue. The hero finds that he must kill the villain–it is the only way to stop him from destroying the heroine in the story. Is it hard to believe that violence was necessary to save us from ourselves?
But it is offensive. The pain, the blood, anguish. But He did not suffer for nothing, he was not a masochist. He was a soldier, fighting for us, tearing his way through the enemy lines.
After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities (Is 53:11).
…who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (Heb 12:2).
In high school I had a friend who was a Jehova’s Witness. I remeber him telling me why I shouldn’t wear a cross. “If your friend had been guillotined, would you wear a little guillotine around your neck?” he asked rhetorically. But perhaps I would. If my friend’s death had saved me, perhaps I would.
In the bloody face, the scourge-stripes, there is somehow release, relief. Wounds and blood are to the warrior like sweat is to the athlete, a badge, an honor. Warriors show their wounds with satisfaction.
And they sang a new song: ”You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation (Rev 5:9).”
A man hanging, nailed to a wooden cross, bleeding from many wounds, thorns pressed into his scalp, struggling to breathe, dying of asphixiation in agony. Violent? Of course. Offensive? According to Paul, that depends on our perspective.
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 1:23).
I’ve been thinking about this. Is the cross the power of God to me?
*Violent Grace is the title of a song by Michael Card.
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.’ “
