Misquoting Augustine Part 4

Before I get to a personal conclusion regarding Genesis, a thought occurs to me in regard to the origins debate.

Is it possible that there is confusion in the muddled idea of science that exists in the public consciousness, a confusion that extends into the science academy, science classroom, the literature, about what the limits of science are?

Everyone agrees, whether naturalist, creationist, ID advocate or theistic evolutionist, that science rightly studies phenomena in the natural realm - physical objects, measurable forces, detectable energy - all in accordance with natural law. Where the problem lies is not with science. It is a straw man to say ID or creationism rejects science. What opponents of naturalism reject is not science but the inferences made as a result of certain assumptions.

Misquoting Augustine Part 3

In the previous two posts I looked briefly at Augustine’s “Literal Meaning of Genesis” and its use by theistic evolutionists to bolster their case for a fairly figurative reading of Genesis. It should be stated clearly that the main question we are asking is “what is the most natural interpretation of Genesis?” We ask this particularly in the context of how Augustine understood Genesis some 1400 years before Darwin.

The point put forward by some advocates of theistic evolution is that even prior to Darwin, Augustine allowed for a fairly open interpretation of Genesis and discouraged Christians untrained in the sciences from connecting Genesis to scientific explanations. If those connections were proved to be false by the advance of science, we are told, Christianity would be discredited.

Misquoting Augustine Part 2

In part 1 I took a look at a particular quotation from Augustine’s Literal Meaning of Genesis (LMoG) used by theistic evolutionists to argue that it is unwise to read the Genesis creation account in a way that conflicts with current scientific consensus. Francis Collins' Biologos website makes Augustine appear to be a fairly prominent ally in a fairly flexible interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

While taken as a lone quotation, Augustine’s plea that “we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it” may indeed be a valid caution for all who seek to provide any scientific explanation for the fine details of Genesis 1. Theistic Evolutionists use this quote primarily as a rebuke to Young Earth Creationism, but often include in their sights the more “Old-Earth” views of folks like Hugh Ross and even the advocates of Intelligent Design who generally make no reference to Genesis at all. The goal of theistic evolutionists in quoting Augustine is primarily to convince Christians that Darwinism in toto is not incompatible with faith.

But those who quote Augustine in this way usually fail to mention Augustine’s views of the historicity of Adam, the historicity of the fall and the effects of the fall, which are far more central to a traditional position on questions of origins than the age of the earth or the precise mechanism of the initial creation of time, matter, space and energy. As we shall see later, Augustine would fully agree with a number of YEC views on topics pertaining to Genesis 3-11.

Misquoting Augustine Part 1

I am fascinated and often irritated with the mindset of many who support theistic evolution, the idea that God is somehow the force that drives naturalistic evolution. I do not believe science and scripture are incompatible but I do believe scientism and naturalism are incompatible with the supernatural theism that seems inextricably embedded in scripture. And there is the rub. Theistic evolutionists seem to accept, either implicitly or explicitly, a belief in naturalism. They accept, at least regarding origins, that there is a uniformity of natural causes and that all things related to origins can (and must) be explained in terms of natural processes we observe at present.

It seems to me that theistic evolution is a fool’s bargain where naturalism gets the whole farm and theism gets next to nothing in the wager. It also seems odd and exceedingly inconsistent for theistic evolutionists to state they believe in miraculous New Testament events like the resurrection and the virgin birth, but then limit discussions of origins to purely natural causes.

So I am particularly interested to read from various Theistic Evolutionists the assertion that Augustine’s small tract “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis” provides an historical understanding of Genesis that supports a reading of the text in a way that is compatible with the whole gamut of modern Darwinian assertions including the common descent of man from lower life forms.

This view has been mentioned on Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog by a fairly cordial scientist who goes by the blog handle RJS. It is a prominent link on the Biologos website founded by Francis Collins and is alluded to by Allister McGrath in a Christianity Today article from several months back. The suggestion is, in a nutshell, that Augustine, Aquinas, Origen and others allowed for a range of interpretations of the creation account, and Augustine in particular warned Christians not to pick a fight with science, because if our interpretation of Genesis is found to be in conflict with factual science, then our interpretation will discredit the faith. It is commonly asserted in this context that YEC views in particular are a recent and naïve development that grew out of the fundamentalist/modernist controversies of the early 20^th century but are not a normative reading of Genesis. It is usually the case that Intelligent Design is presented as almost as wrongheaded as YEC.

If it is true that ancient interpreters read Genesis as an allegorical story, it is a point I would consider, because I do believe our interpretation of scripture should be influenced by the great exegetes of the past. So I took it upon myself to actually read Augustine. I dare say, I think he is being seriously misrepresented or at least selectively quoted.

In reading through his “Literal Interpretation of Genesis” it is clear Augustine is making a case for humility in the reading of the account of the creation of the cosmos. Point for their side. But never does Augustine deny the historicity of the events of the creation of the earth nor the creation and the fall of man. And far more of the YEC case is dependent on the latter than the former.

First, Augustine alerts us to the reality that the author of Genesis can use terms that can mean things in more than one sense. He asks, for example, if the phrase “heaven and earth” is a literal or figurative term? It needs to be stated that Augustine believed scripture can and should have more than one sense, particularly the Old Testament. There were literal historical events – one meaning found in the literal sense. In the Old Testament, there was clearly a foreshadowing of the New Covenant, so the Old Testament had a prophetic sense in addition to the literal. There is also a moral sense, the precepts that are suggested by the text. But Augustine did not suggest that the literal sense should be ignored or explained away. Prophetic and moral meanings exist in addition to the literal, not in spite of it.

Says Augustine: “…we should consider the eternal truths that are taught, the facts that are narrated, the future events that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels that are given.” All these senses are equally important to Augustine, not at the expense of the literal.

Augustine also clearly thought parts of Genesis 1 were beyond easy interpretation. This difficulty was a feature of the text itself, not a concession to outside influences. The text was simply ambiguous in some, though not all, matters. In chapter 2 of the Literal Meaning of Genesis (hereafter LMoG) he ponders the meaning of “light”, the idea of imperfection in that which is initially formed. In ch. 9 he ponders the very meaning of time and its relation to the initial creation of light and the words “Let there be…” In ch. 10 he wrestles with the question of light being in existence on a “day” when the sun had not yet been created. So he alerts us that there is a real hermeneutical puzzle inherent in the text in that “light” might mean visible light or it might mean something else, since the sun and stars did not exist at the first mention of light.

In ch 13 he suggests the basic form of earth may have existed before the first creation day, (which could allow for some forms of a “gap” theory, where the time between the initial creation in Genesis 1:1 and the rest of the account from 1:2 forward is open to discussion). 

“A further question, then, arises as to the time when God created these distinct forms and qualities of water and earth. No mention is made of this act in the six days. Hence let us suppose that God did this before any of the days began; for, before any mention of the first days...”

In all this, his modest point is simply that the intent of the author in the first few verses of Genesis is not precisely clear. There are difficulties within the text itself –seeming contradictions and unanswered questions. What is being described is something we have no real context from which to triangulate a precise meaning. And because the text itself is not easy to interpret, it may be unwise to tie the wording of the first few verses of Genesis to any scientific explanation of how specific early events of creation came to pass.

Hence the oft-quoted paragraph from McGrath, Collins, RJS:

“In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.”

Augustine then adds:

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Notice that Augustine says we should seek to conform our opinions to the scriptures rather than force the scriptures to conform to our understanding. Hmm. Sounds like Augustine is saying we should bow to the text – when its meaning is clear. He is also saying we should be cautious where scripture is unclear. But he is surely saying we should bow to the text.

But Collins and others mean by quoting the above two paragraphs that YEC advocates who attempt to find scientific support for a literal reading of Genesis 1-3 are making a mockery of the faith, because science has, in the view of Collins and RJS, proven beyond any question that the universe is very old and that all biological life descends from common ancestors. Their citing of Augustine is intended to lead questioning YEC believers away from the apparently indefensible pseudo-science of YEC (and ultimately ID) to their more enlightened view which is baptized naturalism and de facto Darwinism. They use Augustine to assert that it is quite permissible to read Genesis in a way that fully conforms with current Darwinian science.

But is that what Augustine meant to say? I think not. Part 2 will look at the quotes from LMoG that are conspicuously left out.

Origins – the first question

Been reading and pondering and arguing a bit on the web regarding the steady shift among Christians toward either theistic evolution or some form of progressive creation. See in particular numerous posts on Jesus Creed regarding evolution. It seems more and more University educated Christians who may have come from fairly Bible centered backgrounds are abandoning not only young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism but even a broad view of Intelligent Design.

For the moment I won’t argue specific details regarding this or that specific element of the ID vs evolution debate, nor debate the meaning of specific phrases in Genesis 1-3, nor the necessary distinction that must be made between creationism and ID. What I will question is the assumption those Christians who make this concession to naturalism may have. That concession is that God used “natural laws” including natural selection as his method of creation. Here’s my main beef:

The “common-sense” reading of the text of scripture posits a Creator-God. Consider that and only that for a moment. We are told that God existed “in the beginning” or even before the beginning. We are told God created the heavens and the earth. We are told He is the “beginning and the end”, implying, at least, He is not bound by time. We are told he will one day destroy the world by fire and bring into existence a New Heaven and a New Earth. If all this is true, then time, space, and the laws of nature in no way are binding on God.

So then, it seems to follow that it is God who created the laws of nature; else, those laws would be higher than God. This seems a fundamental assumption of belief in a creator.

The second thought is this. We are presented in both the biblical text and the long history of Christian theology with a God who works miracles. Again focus on that thought.

This is a second fundamental point of the very definition of God in historic orthodox Christianity. By definition, miracles are events that are out of the ordinary, suspensions of the normal workings of nature. Changing water to wine bypasses the normal frame of time it takes to grow grapes, crush them, package them and allow the process of fermentation to work. The laws of nature as we know them would have to be superseded in the miraculous acts of a God who is above nature. Healing of a man who is blind or lame from birth is a bypassing of the normal path to healing, or at least an acceleration of it. Curing someone of leprosy by a touch is a manipulation of reality that goes beyond the laws of nature.

So, the laws of nature are laws which God can supersede at any time. The laws of nature do not bind God in any way in the past, present or future, in the New Testament miracles of Christ, the Old Testament miracles of the Exodus, nor in the early chapters of Genesis. Again this is a fundamental implication of the very concept of a “creator-God”.

Put the two ideas together:

If this picture of a creator-God is accepted as a definition of the very term “God”, then to try to explain either a miracle or the acts of creation in terms of natural laws, to try to uncover “how God did it” in terms of natural law alone, is to miss the point entirely. He would obviously not need to follow the laws of nature to create the laws of nature. To reduce what is by definition the “miraculous” to a set of natural causes and effects is to deny the very concept of the miraculous. And to say that the miraculous cannot take place is to say that God is not God.

The very starting point of Christian faith, “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things seen and unseen”, is a God who is outside of nature, who created nature, who is not bound by nature and who can at will supersede the laws of nature. This, it has always seemed to me, is the starting assumption of Christianity. God exists and created ALL THINGS.

But the starting assumption of naturalistic science is the assumption that all things must be explained according to natural causes and only natural causes. Christians who accept this definition of science either by choice or simply as a result of absorbing unexamined assumptions, who use naturalism to explain “how God created” seem to saw off the branch on which they sit as professed Christians. The initial tenet of theism, the most foundational of all theological truths is seemingly set aside by those who accept the full naturalistic explanation of origins and try to wrap Christianity around it. At best, God is somehow behind the big bang, but every other event in the history of the universe is assumed to be fully explainable by natural processes alone.

There is a caveat in that some suggest God is active in the laws of nature, so the supernatural is not completely dismissed, but the overall effect is still to insist that all we see can be explained in reference to natural law. Certainly, it may be theoretically possible that God “used” the mechanism of natural selection to “create”, but it seems to me that such a view also imprisons God in the straight-jacket of “natural law”. Did God need to use natural processes? The answer should clearly be “no”. The follow up is “why then have you chosen to believe He did use only natural processes in reference to origins?”

The answer usually comes down to something like, “because to practice science requires that we limit ourselves to what can be observed in nature” or some other response that fails to answer the theological question. They have become beholden to the details and arguments of a “science” that is naturalistic by definition and a definition of science 180 degrees in opposition to the supernatural.

And here we reach an impasse. Since science is almost always defined in the last 50-150 years as 1) the study of natural phenomena, 2) explained in terms of natural law; it is asserted that no explanations that appeal to something other than natural law can be permitted in the sacred sphere of what is called “science”. Hence, ID, which is distinct from creationism precisely because it uses religious dogma neither as a starting point, a source of evidence nor even a necessary conclusion, suggests simply that natural law is insufficient to explain certain phenomena, therefore even Christian supporters of neo-Darwinian notions emphatically declare that ID is not science, or worse ID is merely “god of the gaps” creationism.

-------

One commonly stated reason for the closed definition of science is the assertion that once one appeals to something beyond nature as an explanation, that explanation is not falsifiable because no one can test whether the supernatural was in fact the cause. Such an allowance for something outside of nature would supposedly destroy science by appealing to things not testable by science.

This is a bit of a straw man, because the idea that an omnipotent God can supersede natural law in no way denies that natural law exists. Exceptions do not invalidate a rule, particularly when it was the One who authored the rule who effects the exception. Early scientists, most of whom were theists, believed in an orderly universe governed by natural law precisely because they believed that a God created the universe with purpose, order and that such a universe could be studied. They founded much of what we now call science by “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”. Miraculous events on rare occasions may supersede natural laws as exceptions, but in no way obliterate them.

By the same token, it is often theists themselves who debunk superstitions and false claims of the miraculous. That which can be explained by trickery or slight of hand is willingly dismissed by the theist and exposed precisely because the theist believes the universe was created by an intelligence. The theist only accepts as "miracle" that which cannot be explained in reference to natural law. In fact, it is the very existence of natural law, “the way things normally work” that gives definition to that which would be considered miraculous. A virgin birth would not be a miracle unless there was a natural law that a virgin birth might supersede.

But does no one see that if the only explanations that can be offered for everything that exists are naturalistic explanations, then the central premise of naturalistic science can itself never be falsified? How does one verify that all things are explainable only in reference to natural law? No matter how reasonable such a premise may seem, one would need something akin to omniscience to verify the claim, and in the case of the science of origins, the events in dispute, events well beyond the reach of recorded history, are beyond the reach of observation.

Now I fully understand how secular scientists who may be atheist or agnostic would insist on purely naturalistic explanations. Such a view is at least logically consistent, even if ultimately unverifiable. Agnostics and atheists say that they see insufficient evidence to believe in a God and thus conclude the universe is best thought of in terms of naturalism. That is consistent.

But is it consistent for those who describe themselves as Christians, who believe that God is the Creator, who apparently accept the first assumption that God created all things, who usually accept the resurrection and often accept the virgin birth as examples of the miraculous, to then turn around and embrace a view that philosophically does not allow God to act outside of natural law or to perform creative miracles in the science of origins?

To do so, seems to me, is not only inconsistent, but serves in practical terms to give up the very first building block of the Christian faith, that there is a God who stands as creator and Lord over all creation. Such a person seems to say he believes in God as creator with one hand, but then he seems to take away all God’s power to miraculously create with the other. God is allowed to be the engineer behind all nature and the author of natural law, but He is bound up within the constraints of the natural law He created once the events are set in motion. It is to profess theism and believe theism completely irrelevant to the study of origins! I suppose deism might be the best synonym for theistic evolution and its various cousins.

I simply cannot accept such a view. If we believe that God can create an entire universe, it is not at all logical to deny that he can work within that universe, to raise Christ from the dead, to turn water to wine, to heal the blind, deaf and lame. Why, if we believe God is big enough to accomplish the big bang, and set billions of stars in motion, would we not believe that at least in theory, he could rain manna from heaven, part the water of the Red Sea? Is the possibility that God might judge humanity by a massive, even global flood and create human beings as unique individuals from the dust of the ground something to be excluded from the faith? How is it in the minds of these Christian advocates of naturalism that the creator God ceased to act as God during the very days of creation?

This is a fundamental question. So many have surrendered the meaning of the initial statement of Genesis, the gospel of John and the Nicene Creed and yet still profess to be Christians. I do not see a cogent, logical reason for such a stance. If one accepts naturalism without qualification, then agnosticism or deism is the logical position, not a wrapping of naturalism in the language of faith.

The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense - Pt 5

My final post on the Intelligent Design Network Statement of Objectives concerns the role one’s view of origins plays in shaping values.  

The statement says:

"A society’s view of its origins will ultimately impact its social behavior and the values it places upon certain behaviors. Institutional establishment of only one of two possible biases or assumptions with respect to origins can be expected to promote logically-consistent views regarding Religion, ethics, morality, government and politics. The implicit or explicit imposition of such views will offend many and restrict the freedom to embrace and promote alternative viewpoints."

The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense - Pt 4

The fourth point of the Intelligent Design Network statement of principles says:

"Institutional insistence for either a non-refutable materialistic or a Teleological assumption compromises the integrity of good Origins Science. Non-refutable assumptions are counter to the inherent skepticism of Science. They frustrate a search for an inference to the best of multiple competing explanations. These assumptions convert the protected explanation into an explanation designed to fit a preconception. The Institutionally protected explanation then becomes the prevailing orthodoxy or dogma rather than a scientific explanation open to question."

The key words here are rather straightforward.  “Insistence”, “Assumption” and “non-refutable”. 

The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense - Part 3 .

I’ve been pondering the general statement of objectives of the Intelligent Design Network intended to plead for objectivity and against the forced orthodoxy of naturalistic assumptions in the teaching of origins.  The first two points dealt with the subjectivity of explaining the unobservable events of the distant past by making inferences from present processes and the insistence that those inferences be given the status of irrefutable fact.  While those points are very well crafted, Item C is the part of the IDNet statement of that I find most critical.

"Implications of scientific explanations of origins unavoidably impact Religion, ethics, morality, government and politics. The implications of materialistic explanations of origins support the central tenets of non-Theistic Religions, while the implications of Teleological explanations support the central tenets of Theistic Religions. Both Theistic and non-Theistic Religions and worldviews address questions of ethics, morality, government and politics."

The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense - Part 2

I started a series on a resource at IDNet which attempts to make a case for including ID as one acceptable theory of origins.  ID is not creationism as it makes no connections whatever to the Genesis account either in its assumptions nor its conclusions.  Nevertheless, ID has been tossed out of the public sphere by the courts on several occasions for failing to comply with the assumption that all things can be explained in terms of natural law alone. 

The second point of the IDNet statement of objectives is:

"The adequacy of scientific explanations of origins depends on an analysis of competing possibilities. Origins explanations use a form of abductive2 reasoning that produces competing Historical Hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation. Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of Historical Hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared. While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation."

The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense

Found a good source for Intelligent Design info at the Intelligent Design Network

Managing director John Calvert’s many documents on the site are some of the more readable and insightful I’ve seen. I am particularly interested in the “Statement of Objectives” IDNet sets out that are intended to get around the impasse between ID and Darwinism.

So I’d like to take some time to work through the main points. Here’s the first:

From the Bookstore...

So we get a mailing from a local Christian bookstore.  I leaf through it.  It has some of the latest Christian music CDs, a big promo for the video release of a recent Christian film.  Lots of knick-knacks related to valentines day and Valentines cards.  There are a whole slew of books about marriage and, yes, sex.  There is as section on finances.  There is an autobiography from a famous athlete.  Lots of decorative crosses, picture frames and a few pieces of jewelry.  A biographical movie about a doctor.  There are a number of Christian fiction entries, mostly in the "romance" category, a few devotionals and some self-help stuff for men.  There are some kids videos, "devotionals" for teens and more CCM CDs.   Add a couple of vids on biblical characters.

In 32 pages of ads, there are three bibles and one book by Lee Strobel on apologetics.  Not a single serious work of theological weight, save for Strobel's.

Just wondering, what does that say about the state of American Evangelicals?   

Origins – the first question

Been reading and pondering and arguing a bit on the web regarding the steady shift among Christians toward either theistic evolution or some form of progressive creation.  It seems more and more University educated Christians who may have come from fairly Bible centered backgrounds are abandoning not only young-earth creationism, but even a broad view of Intelligent Design.

For the moment I won’t argue specific details regarding this or that specific element of the ID vs evolution debate, nor debate the meaning of specific phrases in Genesis 1-3.  What I will question is the assumption those Christians who make this concession may have.  That concession is that God used “natural laws” including natural selection as his method of creation.  Here’s my main beef: