Biologos and the Invisible Hand of God

Credit where credit is due, since coming under the direction of Deborah Haarsma, the Biologos.org website has managed tone down the rhetoric against its opponents, even if little has changed in the views presented there. Steven Meyer was recently given space to respond to his critics, and all in all I think the exchange was healthy.

Meyer’s main point in his response was that the folks at Biologos are committed to methodological naturalism and that is the primary thing that separates them from other theistic viewpoints. Evidence of both Biologos more conciliatory tone and commitment to naturalism are apparent in the statement quoted below. (More)

First, there is a general statement of belief in God as Creator, but coupled with a statement of belief in evolutionary science.

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.

Some Random Quotes

My wife and I went to a Farmer's market recently and I found someone selling books at a table, used books of various kinds. I bought two. Both were $2.00. They were by J.P. Moreland and they were on Christian apologetics. I guess it was good that I got a deal. But it was discouraging in another way. When I buy a quality book, I keep it. When good books that challenge the mind are casually discarded, it makes me wonder who let them go and why.

On the way home, I leafed through the book "Love Your God With All Your Mind." At the beginning of each chapter there were various quotes from different figures. Three in particular aroused some old passions in me.

"False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and succeed only in winning a straggle here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion." - J Gresham Machen

Is Evidential Apologetics Dead? - Part 3

If it is true that Christianity doesn't fit into the cateories of mathematical or scientific "bomb-proof certainty", then what kind of proof can we speak of for basic tenets of Christianity?

We have, in this country, a longstanding legal tradition that says that cases can be settled on the principle of proof "beyond reasonable doubt". We do not require that matters be settled with absolute certainty, which is not humanly possible for your average court case. What we require is that a case be made which establishes something in such a way that to doubt a particular conclusion would be unreasonable.

Is Evidential Apologetics Dead? - Part 2

In all the conversations I have seen regarding whether evidential apologetics are no longer useful, something strikes me as odd. One reason evidential apologetics seems under attack is because the notion of "bomb-proof certainty" has been abandoned. It is often stated that certainty is one of those enlightenment ideas that should be given up in favor of epistemological modesty and an embrace of mystery and ambiguity.

Part of the reason for this is criticism from skeptics who insist many of the traditional "proofs" of this or that are not adequate. But I tend to think there is a bit of category confusion going on here. There is a lack of definition of what is meant by the term "proof".

I tend to think of proof in terms of three types - mathematical, scientific and legal.

Is Evedential Apologetics Dead? Part 1

The late Robert Webber coined a phrase in "The Younger Evangelicals" which has caught on in Emerging Church circles - "embodied apologetics". He means, if I read him correctly, that because we live in a postmodern age where young people are skeptical about the triumph of the scientific method, they are not receptive to the old apologetics approach of "evidence that demands a verdict", but do respond to a "proof is in the pudding" approach where seeing Christianity lived well is compelling.

I generally have liked Robert Webber. He does not seem to travel the path of others who are sensitive to postmodern cultural shifts - that is, though he recognizes that many enlightenment ideas art now seen as discredited in the culture at large and are considered naive by postmoderns, he does not seem to buy all of the tenets of the postmodern epistemology uncritically. Webber tends to speak in measured tones - not overstating his case, not trashing all things modern, not treating postmodern notions as the latest and greatest thing. He seems a bit more cautious than others in this regard.

So when Webber says "embodied apologetic", guys like me tend to listen and not react like we do when hearing the more provocative spokesmen of EC make their pronouncements. He seems to be saying "we need to understand the culture without succumbing to it." We don't have to accept everything in PoMo epistemology, but we do need to deal with it. If the folks we are trying to convince of the truth of Christianity don't warm to rational proofs, then we are foolish to take rational proofs as a starting point. If they do respond to genuine community, then by all means, having goals of establishing and maintaining communities that are genuine makes sense. One does not have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Lost Faith

From Hugh Hewitt...If you don't believe a lack of holiness and doctrinal purity can be damaging to others, read this.

I do not mean to take God's place and pass judgment, but Jesus words about those who mislead children having a millstone around the neck are rather sobering. Lord have mercy.

Debates Worth Reading

I have liked many of the things Christopher Hitchens has written over the past couple of years. He is articulate, witty, fearless and you know what you are reading is exactly what he thinks. His defense of the war in Iraq and scathing critique of Michael Moore are both a treat to read.

Now he has written God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. He seems to have taken on all religion, including Islamo-fascism and Christianity. Ordinarily I would be rather disappointed and leave it at that, but for the debate Christianity Today hooked up between Hitchens and Douglas Wilson, author of Letter from a Christian Citizen. What strikes me about this debate is how literate both participants are, how forthright, how much fun they seem to be having. Neither pulls any punches. They blast each other regularly, but with delightful prose. I think Wilson does a very good job of holding Hitchen's feet to the fire on the basic question of whether morality is even a legitimate term to use if there is no higher purpose in the universe.

Just read the whole thing. Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 and part 5.

And then, when that is all done, read the response to Hitchens' book by his brother Peter here. More great reading.

Is Jesus the Only Savior?

Taking a break from Calvinism for a moment, I have to plug a great book. James Edwards was a mentor to my nephew Troy, who became a Presbyterian pastor, (and leans in the Calvinist direction - but we're still very much on speaking terms!) I had not read anything by Edwards prior to reading Is Jesus the Only Savior? I have to admit I didn't know what to make of the title at first, but after reading it, I suspect it is a book that ought to be looked at by a lot of young college age men who need mentoring, and maybe ought to be a study for high school seniors heading to college.

His book is calm, scholarly, but readable. He takes on the various phases of the "quest for the historical Jesus" by exposing the naturalistic assumptions underneath them. He takes the question further showing that there is a great deal of reason to trust the historical reliability of the New Testament with easy to read, cogent arguments and a judicious choice of compelling evidence. There was new material here that I had never encountered. Josh McDowell and others have produced a volume of information in this regard, but I found items in Edwards book very exciting. Having established the reasonableness of trusting the New Testament, he tackles the central issue - "did Jesus believe himself to be God?"

But what sets the book apart is how he links the rebuttal of "modern" skepticism of the historicity of Christianity with the "after-modern" skepticism about whether Christianity has the right to make exclusive truth claims. This is the epistemological question of the age my sons will have to deal with and I hope I can get them to take a good look at a book like this one.

The one caveat for more conservative evangelicals is that Edwards admits that it is difficult for him to reconcile every detail of the gospels into a perfect harmony, so he does not identify himself as being in the strict inerrantist/fundamentalist camp. Then again, C.S. Lewis was not exactly a fundamentalist and most evangelicals are quite comfortable learning from him.

This is an important, credible and readable book. I hope it gains a wide audience.