Ruse and Religion

I just returned home from the Dembski/Ruse debate and the discussions that ensued. I came late and missed most of the debate and did not hear Dembski present. I heard the end of Ruse’s last presentation and the Q & A session. I had a question to ask Michael Ruse, but wasn’t able to at the debate.

My question was really going to be a challenge of sorts, rather than an attempt to satisfy curiosity. It seemed to me that Ruse was playing two sides, taking up whichever one was the most convenient at the time. On the one hand, he would say that it is possible that there is a transcendent, self-existing, necessary being and that the supernatural might exist. He would then also argue that science must presuppose naturalism and that methodical naturalism must be applied. It seems to me that when he makes both of these claims that he throws the relationship of science to truth under the bus. He is essentially arguing that science must adhere to framework that might be completely contrary to reality.

Science is Atheistic?

There is a certain atheist I have interacted with some… I’ll refer to him as JJ. He is found commonly commenting on the OU Daily website. He could have had a column in the Daily, but rejected it due to his disdain for some of the other columnists and the editor. He commonly uses profanity and ad hominem. Recently he has also taken to telling people to use Google rather than actually arguing his case. And, after I made a comment in a thread on Facebook, suggesting that he hadn’t actually made a case, he changed his settings to block me from seeing him or anything he does. I wouldn’t typically recommend this approach to discussion.

Just a few hours ago (before I was blocked), he made the assertion that science is atheistic. I asked him about it and he responded with quite a bit of profanity and name calling. I have quite a hard time believing that the atheist can know anything by any method consistent with his atheism, let alone that atheism is required for science! Of course, I believe that Christian theism is thenecessarypresupposition for science.

For example, by Christianity I know that God created the world, that creation exists, that I exist, etc. I also know that the world is sovereignly governed by God and that nature obeys his laws. I thus expect to find consistency in them, throughout space and time. I can know that my thoughts can (if acting in obedience to God) correctly interpret reality - that nature is intelligible.

By what means does the atheist assume such things? His supposed reality is governed both by randomness and law; by the irrational and rational.

How in the world does someone reconcile rationalism and irrationalism? If the world is inherently irrational, how does one then arrive at reason and rationality? If one asserts that chance is actually the product of rational processes that have yet to be explained, how does one know? And, if ‘chance’ is produced by fixed laws, does it not cease to be ‘chance’?

Luke 18 and Mark 10 - Did Jesus deny being deity?

Video I made in response to the assertion that Christ denied being God in Luke 18…

[Facebook users: click here]

12-Year-Old on Abortion

After being threatened with disqualification (because of the topic), this 12-year-old girl from Toronto won a speech competition. She was initially disqualified by the judges, but after much disagreement and one of the judges quitting, the girl was declared the winner.

[For those of you reading this on Facebook, the video is here.]

The GOD Delusion (Part 1 of 11)

This is my examination and thoughts of Richard Dawkins’ book: The GOD Delusion.¹ 

Chapter 1 - A Deeply Religious Non-Believer

This chapter is split up into two parts: Deserved Respect and Undeserved Respect. The first section describes the ‘metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists’, and the second describes a supernatural god.

Deserved Respect

Dawkins begins by relating the experiences of two boys gazing at the magnificence of the world in wonder: one himself, the other an Anglican priest. He then wonders why such an experience would lead one child to the priesthood and the other to atheism, saying it ‘is not an easy question to answer’. Yet despite this uncertainty, he concludes that had the priest read the closing paragraph to The Origin of Species in his childhood, he certainly would have chosen atheism as well. Dawkins includes this paragraph from Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant’? Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

After reading this I had three basic thoughts. One, perhaps Christians have failed to communicate how big our God is! Or worse, perhaps Christians don’t recognize themselves how big God is! I find the latter far more likely. Second, is the universe bigger than described in the Bible? I think not! Genesis 22:15-17 suggests that the number of stars and the number of grains of sand on the shore to be similar. Job 22:12 describes the stars as ‘distant’ and ‘high’ (NASB). But more than just describing a number or distance, the Bible gives poetic, elegant, magnificent descriptions of things in nature. Which brings me to my third thought, that though things in nature may be found to be magnificent, we are to look on the glory of God with far more awe! If the creation is so inspiring, how much more the creator!

Psalm 19:1-6 (ESV)

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.t
Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat.

Deuteronomy 4:19 (NASB)

And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.

The main point of this section seems to be explaining the Naturalistic use of the word ‘God’, making distinctions between theism, deism, and pantheism, and explaining Einstein’s view of ‘God’ and responses to it. I think there is a couple of sentences in this section that should certainly be noted. Dawkins writes that a philosophical naturalist believes there are “no miracles - except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.”²

I think this is important to notice that the naturalist sees ‘miracles’ only as natural phenomena not yet explained. I have found that many atheists demand ‘evidence’ for God: specifically, empirical evidence. The naturalist has already dismissed the ‘evidence’ he demands. Perhaps those atheists apt to reference Anthony Flew ought to consider whether their position is falsifiable!³ It is just as Abraham said, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.” (NASB; see Luke 16:19-31)

Undeserved Respect

This section starts with Dawkins telling us that he will be referring to supernatural gods in general when using the word ‘God’. Most of this section is spent bemoaning the respect religions have in society.

In one paragraph, Dawkins declares that the First Amendment does not protect ‘hate speech’. This is an interesting topic; how is ‘hate speech’ to be defined? Should the U.S. to hold us accountable for hatred? This seems to be a very vague suggestion at best. This paragraph also suggests that the freedom of religion is used as a trump card. I wonder what his solution to this problem would be? Surely we would not let the British define the limits of our faith and practice…

Conclusion

This chapter is mainly there to distinguish between the naturalistic and deist ‘god’ and the supernatural ‘god’ and to set the stage for the rest of the book.

1. Richard Dawkins, The GOD Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006). [↩]
2. Ibid., at 14. [↩]
3. Anthony Flew wrote a paper, Theology and Falsification, in which he argues that if there are no criteria for denying an assertion, it isn’t asserting anything. [↩]

Multiple Interpretations: A Problem?

In an ethics class I am in, the author of the book lays out many reasons within the first chapter as to why he believes religion cannot be the basis of a rational system of ethics. Among many of the ridiculous reasons given is the idea that religious people disagree and there is no criterion with which to determine the correct view. Specifically, he mentions that there are many differing interpretations of the Bible; the supposed problem is that we have no basis of deciding between them and cannot know which interpretation is correct. I have heard this and similar claims many times from a wide variety of people. When I hear it in person it typically follows a statement I have made based on the biblical text and is expressed in the form of, “Well, that’s your interpretation.” So, does the existence of multiple interpretations negate the possibility of biblical authority and provide grounds for its dismissal? Does the existence of multiple interpretations of a given passage prove those interpretations meaningless? Is there criterion by which an interpretation can be adjudicated?

It is my contention that this dismissal of the Bible stems not from a way to discern between interpretations, but from a presupposition that the Bible is not the word of God. If one starts with the idea that the Bible is not the word of God and that it is both fallible and false, then one may easily dismiss all interpretations of such a text as equally invalid - all the while thinking that disputes over interpretations are not decidable and frighteningly absurd.

On the other hand, if the Bible is presupposed to be the inspired Word of God, can the conflicts between interpretations be revolved? Assuming the Bible is the Word of God, let’s examine what it says about itself:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV)

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Romans 15:4 (ESV)

For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Given that the Bible is profitable for reproof and correction, there must be things it is not saying. That is, there must be teachings and interpretations that are false and ergo correctable (see also 2 Peter 3:13-18). We can also see that Scripture was purposed for our teaching and instruction.

Isaiah 55:10-11 (ESV)

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Job 42:1-2 (ESV)

Then Job answered the LORD and said: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.”

If God’s words and purposes will be accomplished, then the Bible must be able to teach, instruct, correct, etc. the man of God (see also Isaiah 46:9-10). This necessitates that there is a criteria by which the Bible can be correctly interpreted.

2 Timothy 2:15 (ESV)

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

This implies that the Christian can and ought to interpret the Bible correctly, further implying that there is a means to do so. While I have not yet said anything about what the criteria is, I believe I have demonstrated that if one supposes the Bible to be the Word of God, then criteria exist for doing so.

So, if one does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, then biblical interpretation and disputes over interpretation are rather worthless, but it is not because of a lack of criterion, rather a lack of truth and authority. On the other hand, if the Bible is the Word of God, then criteria must exist. Concerning the similar objection that “that’s just your interpretation”: if both x and y interpretations exist of a given passage, the existence of interpretation y does not invalidate interpretation x. The mere existence of differing interpretations does not make them all invalid.

I am going to suggest that because the Word of God was given by use of language that it has canonical context, a context within a specific book and genre, a context within each argument, and a construction within each sentence that contributes to meaning. Since it was given to specific people at specific times, I also suggest it has a historical context. It is then my contention that the grammatical-historical hermeneutic is the criteria for deriving interpretations from the text and deciding between them.