War Has Been Declared!

While browsing magazines during lunch I came across a fresh issue of Wired. Granted I had never actually heard of Wired before watching the Italian Job (Lyle wanted to be on the cover of it). It is a technical magazine I think somewhere along the lines of Popular Science. Anyways, there was a rather catchy and unexpected cover page entitled "The New Atheism: No Heaven. No Hell. Just Science"(The linked version now has a less controversial title). Well knowing me I could not   pass up something like that. I was reminded upon reading the article of Ephesians 6:10-13.

After the initial skim it was clear Richard Dawkins was the most prominent figure interviewed. I was in luck because I was rather familiar with some of his writing. In the article, he was portrayed as the foremost Atheist in in the “New Atheism”. I knew about his feelings toward religion in general but to have it published in a wide circulating magazine, I found to be a bold move. Especially considering the more harsh logical approach he had with his philosophy. The article starts with, "The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking." In addition to Dawkins, it also featured Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris; the author phrased his research that "I wanted to find out what it would mean to enlist in the war against faith." As a whole I was rather pleased with the article's content, I thought it contained less bias than what I expected. I also was impressed how open the interviewees were about the implications of their anti-faith.

There were several interesting factors from the beginning. First, I noticed they never claimed atheism as a religion; instead it was phrased as an antithesis to religion when in fact it is a form of religion by a fair definition. It was a bit of irony to have a religion devoted on the anti-religion. Their goal was to alienate all faiths. New Atheism is not just targeting Judeo-Christian faiths. Such examples Dawkins gave about his respect for religion was to parallel them with belief in garden fairies, unicorns and the sort. Dawkins went so far as to proclaim his personal condemnation on parents who teach faith to their children. He equated such acts as though they willfully were spreading a dangerous virus. Dawkins termed the lingering idea of faith as a "meme" some kind of immaterial (ironic for such a strict materialist/naturalist) thing that influences thought and spreads by mental proximity. I tend to call it the Holy Spirit. Harris compared the existence of religion as a plague in society on the similar level as rape, "religion may be a vestige of primitive nature". Harris pronounced that religion and its tolerance rivaled the social acceptance slavery once had in society. He looks forward to the day when simply believing in God will be too embarrassing to handle. Thanks for putting the most precious area of my beliefs on a pedestal of respect gentlemen.

Dennett seemed to be the most moderate of the bunch; he encouraged public schools to scientifically examine religion. I wonder if he also intended his atheism to be put under the same scrutiny of old science? Dennett is also very much aware of the implications of his beliefs, he could not pinpoint a point when human life began nor justify an inherent value for human life. I wonder if he has considered the deeper implications of such admission? If people do not have an inherent value then how much are we worth? I do wonder what his personal belief of self worth was? I am glad to know I am worth one Jesus to God.

The article certainly attempted to address an age old question, "Is science compatible with faith?" From the group interviewed, it is not. The question in general was not anything new or difficult to answer with a little searching and reading but even that much effort seems to be too much of a hassle for most people. After all, there are so many more important issues at hand, like “who I am going to field for Fantasy Football?” A rabbit trail, I am rather irked by the general population who claims to have passionate beliefs but leave those beliefs as talk and ideas often with insufficient evidence of their faith. I highly encourage you to go and read it yourself. I have long battled having a decent consistency in my ever changing schedule of some kind of quiet time, but over the last year and a half, my desire and pursuit of knowledge has held my attention longer than any other study I have done before. This was more broadly addressed in Why Don't I?

I found the militant approach to religion and faith as an evil to be comforting in a strange way. They were honest with their position. The lines were drawn. We know where they stand. In my mind, identifying such definite positions is one of the hardest parts to ascertain when talking to people. It takes a long time, if it happens at all, to be able to find out what people believe, or at least claim. Lifestyle is the clearest way people speak their beliefs. In addition to the aggressive approach, the utter arrogance was astonishing. By claiming they only believed in science/reason it  implied those who have faith in religion could not also do science or be reasonable! They held themselves so mentally superior to those around them, they could not respect different beliefs. That type of religion just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside! Dawkins talked about how he got his kicks by "pissing people off", through his pride in his atheism.

The New Atheists are not the only ones to take such an arrogant stance. Brights, a new description of people which originated in Sacramento. They formed this new noun to designate naturalistic worldviews to categorize the idea of God in the same way as superstition and magic. The author did visit a youth group in the midst of his research while attending an Atheist get together the following morning. He had an interesting summation, a meeting of Atheists United on a Sunday morning spoke it message "We're lagging among the lower 95%" versus an offer from Pastor Matt at the youth rally "You are kings anointed by God".

I mentioned I was previously very familiar with Richard Dawkins. In Darwin's Black Box; he was the primary object to answer who argued for evolution in the Blind Watchmaker. Furthermore, I have yet to come across an in-depth intelligent-design book which has not mentioned Richard Dawkins as a primary critic. The article provided a candid simplification of this issue. Dawkins stated, "My answer is that the big war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and supernaturalism." That reminded me of When You Believe in Miracles. Something not mentioned by any of the interviewees were their motivations for Atheism. They simply asserted an a priori belief that their view was nothing more than what our physical senses could detect. They then carried on with attacking anyone who would oppose them.

Is the direction of society’s "tolerance"? How many of their free thinking compatriots would respond to their absolute intolerance to different beliefs? I suppose in their mind, I am of the greatest evil because I attempt to spread the love of God. Then again, since I don't try to spread religion I try to spread Christ does that make it okay? There were some interesting bits I noted, such as the Atheist’s prayer, "that our reason will subjugate our superstition, that our intelligence will check our illusions, that we will be able to hold at bay the evil temptation of faith." Romans 1:21-22 Anyone? “For though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise they became fools.”

Although I was familiar with the content of the article, I found it very important considering the type of magazine and the target audience this article sought to reach. When I first saw the cover sheet I thought "Why on Earth would a tech magazine have this cover story?" That was when it dawned on me, that was precisely who the article intended to speak to. The well educated science proclaiming tech folk. This article likely would not have flown in something like Home & Garden, or Good Housekeeping. The target audience was single educated men, the potential leaders of society. This will likely serve as much more than an exposé on a new up and coming belief system. Instead, it will likely spur a growth of many other self-righteous accomplished "freethinkers" to further become intolerant to the faithful. Is anyone else curious when the ACLU will come to our rescue when we receive persecution from this new religion?

The other important factor is to be current with what is happening in American popular culture. I want to say every 6 months or so Newsweek will run a cover story of religious nature. I think it is important to read these articles to get a gauge of where the country is going or which newest belief is becoming popular. Probably the most face time in the media Christianity has received would either be a news update about Fred Phelps or perhaps the apprehension of Warren Jeffs.

I found this at a rather appropriate time in my personal development. After reading Hard Questions, Real Answers, I was presented with the idea of being a Christian scholar. Although the main message of the book was not incredibly new or challenging, the introduction rocked me. The author challenged the present condition of Christian faith that has been based in feelings and not much in doctrine. I firmly believe we must have a foundation of knowledge to accompany our faith and even strengthen it. What hit me the hardest, there was a list of 10 subjects listed that the author asked us to answer for ourselves how familiar we were with the subjects. I think I scored 7/10 for having an answer and 5/10 for having a good answer. Knowing how much reading I do I was rather disenchanted with my lack of actual church history and writings. My response, the next trip to Amazon I am going to check out some of the writings of the early church fathers like: Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Martin Luther and the sort.

The topic of current Christian scholasticism was also addressed in the article. "Even today, the charismatic movement is somewhat careless of doctrine. There is room for theistic evolutionists, non literalists who hold that each of God's days in Genesis was the equivalent of a geological epoch, even for the notion that a check made out properly to the Lord can influence divine whim... such deviations are generously tolerated in practice." It is one thing to be called out by one of our own in the loving manner that was presented in the book; when those who do not share our beliefs see the dissimilarity and lack of concern for our own beliefs that is embarrassingly sad. It was the inadvertent slap in the face. Many of the base principles of what it is be a Christian is in the doctrine, doctrine the majority of self proclaiming Christians have little or no interest in. That is not so much to address people that have been living the Christian life as much as those who adhere to the civic religion.

What is the purpose of me writing all this? Hopefully the urgency of reason, logic, validity, and importance of apologetics has been made known in our current culture. If we hope to be able to reach people who have not been broken and are desperate for love, or who are at a place but reservations of their reason prevents them from accepting Christ, the importance of knowing how to present Christianity in thought is immeasurable. Not to add enough of the to-do list, we can't under emphasize the personal relationship with Christ. To have the certainty of salvation in the heart and mind unleashes so many reservations about living boldly for Christ. To make the conclusion official here's some good words:

“Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for the righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. - 1 Peter 3:13-16

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. - Jude 1:3

Can Christians Believe in Evolution?

As I was joyfully approaching the end of my current read when I got to thinking again. Something I noted in the midst of the 14 essays contained in the book was virtually all of the contributors never pronounced any stance on what they believed. They only stated they did not believe in evolution in its current state or under the present evidences of support. Myself being clearly defined as a young Earth creationist found that somewhat disconcerting. I find it necessary to explain some terms so we are speaking and reading the same language.

First, by reference to evolution, this pertains to macro-evolution and the guidance by survival of the fittest. I in no way attempt to argue against bacteria adapting and "evolving" as some phrase it, to antibiotics, or that the peppered moths did not change in quantity in relation to the air quality during the observations of the peppered moths in the UK. Second, what on earth is a young earth creationist? Within the camps of creationist, those that believe the Genesis account of creation, there are young Earth and old Earth. The young Earth creationists believe the Earth and the universe is somewhere between 6,000-10,000 years old, while old Earth creationists hold to the billions of years suggested by evolutionary theory. As I go along any other choice vocabulary I happen to describe I'll be sure to define.

As I mentioned in the opening paragraph, the majority of the contributors did not explain what they believed. The editor and contributor of the book, Willaim Dembski, mentioned he was a creationist but I am unsure if he is in the young earth or old earth camp. I know I have written several other blogs about the topic as a whole and you may start to notice as I have learned from the number of books I have read so far on the topic, it is a vast topic. Something I have definitely noticed there are not many books about young earth creationism by very many people with decent credentials showing that they have a functioning brain. I would say Answers in Genesis is one of the main forces for the young earth theory.

Why this is I think is very understandable. In the scientific community there are very few (by proportion) people that have actively stated that they have disagreements with evolutionary theory. In fact, it is even mentioned in Darwin's Black Box if you are a beginning scientist whom wishes to have a career to be silent about your reservations/disagreements. To publicly state that you may have disagreements about the evolutionary theory is in the same breath to kill one's scientific career. Every intellectual I have read so far started believing the theory and after time, tenure and critical thinking they changed their beliefs. In addition to having a red letter on their white collar to much of the community discredits their further science. So unless someone plans on working for a creation science organization to pursue a career in science it is any wonder that there are so few scientists who actively pursue young earth science. A further difficulty in having a greater number of young earth scientists is the limitation of opportunities. By the nature of young earth science, it is related to the Genesis account (they would be Christians) whereas the intelligent design theory while many of the proponents are Christians the actual theory only pertains to an intelligence, be it God, aliens, or some other form of intelligence.

I asked it in the title and it was not a rhetorical question, “Can Christians believe in evolution?” The simple short answer, I do not believe so. Then again you knew I would never answer something so simply. In order to fully answer that question it begs the prior question of what one believes the Bible is? If it is the literal Word of God (take into account that the books of prophecy and poetic books like Psalms, Song of Solomon, and Proverbs use metaphors) or if it is merely a book of stories and legends. Anyone who has looked can easily find the historical proof Jesus of Nazareth existed, be it the direct ancient manuscripts which composes the Bible, the writings of the ancient Jewish historian Tacitus, Jesus’ existence has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. What about the history of the Old Testament? Namely Genesis since that seems to be the key book in this topic.

I think we can biblically figure out if those that wrote the bible believed in the Genesis account of creation. Through a simple search on Biblegateway there are 24 results, allow me to dive into some of them:
In Matthew 13:34-36 Jesus refers to creation in such a way as a specific time. This is also confirmed in Matthew 25:33-35, Mark 10:5-7, and John 17:23-25 just to start. One of my favorite passages, Romans 1:19-21 Paul refers to Creation as the starting point people knew about God and chose to exchange God for something else. Paul mentions creation several other times in Romans, in those terms it was in reference to all the created things. In 2 Corinthians 5:16-18, we are described as new creations when we are in Christ, the logical implication is that before we were in Christ we were old creations. I think that is worth mentioning that we are described as created things, one would reasonably think that to be referred to as something that was created that the event of Creation was believed as such. Galatians 6 also mentions that we are new creations.
Creation is mentioned as an actual event multiple times in Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, and Revelations. Does it make sense that if the authors of scripture believed creation happened, it did? If that is true then I think it would make sense for us also to approach our origins in a similar way.

The other major point about creation being necessary to Christianity is one's belief of original sin. Did sin and death enter the world the moment the fruit from Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was eaten? Be it those that say Christianity is compatible with evolution claiming that it was guided by God or those that take Psalm 90:4 out of context to claim creation was not 7 literal days, day being 24 hours not thousands of years. If sin did not usher death into this world first, alternative theories are saying that at the point in the world when God pronounced the world and all creation to be very good death was present. It also contradicts Romans 5:12-21, Romans 6:15-17. As those passages clearly state, sin is the prerequisite of death. That doesn't mention there for those that want to believe the Day-Age Theory (a day is like a thousand years) there are certain issues of science to answer, such as how did plants survive without the sun. After all plants were created on day 3 while the sun and moon (light to govern the day and light to govern the night) were created on day 4.

So what is the gist of all this? A person can call themselves a Christian and believe whatever they want. However, to be a Christian, is to believe the Bible as the Word of God. I do not think a Christian can believe evolutionary theory as it is in its current form, ie without acknowledgement of God. Those who claim the two beliefs can be compatible negate to mention in order for their faith and idea of science to be compatible, either the Christian doctrine or the evolutionary doctrine must compromise.

Worldview Matters

While reading my current book I came across a truly eye-opening essay that I think points out why it is so important for Christians to be familiar with the origin of life. For those of you willing to spend an hour or so to listen to the presentation just follow the link. I found this piece rather unique because it is not the average "this is the evidence of intelligent design" or "this is what evolutionary theory has assumed without proof", instead it is merely an extrapolation of where our society is going and why IF Darwinism is true as it is so often assumed to be.

I was struck like I saw the light upon reading this because at once so many pieces came together. I have seen a few pieces here and there starting with CS Lewis and on the other side of the spectrum Dr Dino referring to how either Darwinism leads to death and social chaos but not such a concise presentation.

Have no fear this blog is not simply limited to an advertisement of why I really think you should listen to this lecture. I have long believed the pinnacle issue in reaching people in our post-modernist society is to point to them that there is a Truth. That has been the curve ball that I think many Christians are not adequately trained how to deal with. In fact, while on a long bus ride this last weekend I happen to get in an awesome conversation that covered Truth, Free Will and what it means to be a Christ Follower. I believe it was in my sophomore or junior year that I was first made aware of post modernism and how it makes the Gospel void in many minds.

When discussing issues of faith with other Christians one of the basics that I think has the greatest repercussions in one's total theology is how they interpret free will, I think Romans 1 covers that topic quiet well. The quick summary is do people individually choose God or are the predestined as mentioned in scripture the only people that will accept Christ. The nutshell of how it affects us has to do with our evangelistic habits. If we believe that it is a person's individual free choice to accept God then we must reach them were they are and bring Christ to them. If we believe that a person will turn to God as one of the "chosen" then we might not be prompted to bring the Gospel.

So are we free creatures who must own up to our own actions and responsibilities of our life or not? This is where the issue of Darwinism or Humanism directly connects to every facet of our life IF it happens to be true. For those that have been taught since the start public education that we are nothing but chemicals that have come together without purpose and by random chance the value of our lives shouldn't be much more that the vitamin content that we are composed of. In addition, if we are merely chemicals and genetics reacting from prior causes and prior chemical reaction than is it really right to be held accountable for any action or behavior? After all we would simply be the vessel from which the chemicals cause. Issues of society like law, crime, economy, competition, love, and any other aspect will be under the control of the natural forces will suddenly be nonpunishable, moreover the structure of society will be based upon such principles of absolute meaninglessness.

As society is moving along (in which direction I think it is clear) the states of our "Enlightenment" as many intellectuals like to marvel about bases that Christians must prove grows. It is common when I start a discussion about right and wrong that we lead directly into is there truth and what is truth? It does not take much longer to reach the issue of our origin, why would there be truth if there is no truth giver? To prove the existence of personal responsibility we must move people beyond humanism's cause and effect. The philosophical smoke screen blinds so many without them seeing it, and it blinds them that much further from the Christian worldview which I think is a perquisite to one understanding who God is that we might want to live for him.

This is so important for us to be aware and willing to take action against because it is so closely related to the worldview people have. The behavior of society, I believe, is a direct reflection of their worldview. Those who believe the greatest joy in life is to experience pleasure as much as they possibly can, will act accordingly. Those who believe their purpose is to make the world a better place will also act accordingly. Those that believe our purpose in life is to increase God's kingdom will spend their life doing so. In order to get there though because without a life of purpose why would anyone live out a life for anything?

Epilogue: It is always fun to read blogs which I proclaimed a theology I no longer hold. As the years have past, my knowledge grown, I embrace much of what Reformed Theology states.

Are Atheists Open Minded?

"Faith does not imply a closed but an open mind. Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialists overlook by getting trapped in the purely physical." -Sir John Templeton

I think it is fair to say that as a whole Christians viewed by the world are closed minded, un-accepting, and ignorant people. I have gathered these thoughts while reading Case for a Creator and reflecting on some of the MySpace forums, namely one of the more dysfunctional forums I have visited, Hardcore Christians Living Hardcore. I think it is important to point-out this is directed to the stereotype of Christians and to those who do not believe what we believe.

I know that there are Christians who are closed minded, un-accepting, and ignorant but there are many who are not. I find in modern society it seems so important to be “Open Minded” and it is often with new social agenda that Christians are seen as the closed minded group of them all. I base the combined experiences not on any one person that I have talked to but common thought processes that have been made apparent to me through my interactions with people that don't think like me. As I think of one of the most interesting situations to me are the people that insist that everyone should be accepting. I believe this has to do with the definition of “judging”.

A common thing I noticed in the pursuit that everyone must be accepting is that those who are not accepting are seen as racists, bigots, or hate mongers. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the mindset that everyone must accept everyone rather un-accepting? To many people it seems to be a good idea to accept everyone, but is that entirely healthy. I have certainly come to appreciate far more are the freedoms I have because I am an American, and the freedoms I defend as a soldier of the US Army. If we are to have a well rounded society we must have conservatives and liberals and some extremists on both sides can be needed to not lose focus on what is really important from time to time. I just wanted to have these premises.

I found that between talking to atheists and the stance of some promising atheists mentioned in the Case for a Creator there are some interesting aspects to what Atheism actually is and how much faith it really requires. I find this even a little more relevant due to I think there is somewhat of a big issue throughout the nation about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution in public schools. Back to the title question are “Atheists open minded?” I believe it to be not as much as they think they are. In the debate of Intelligent Design the most important thing was "What does the evidence suggest?" Are features of the physical and natural world suggest that the universe, galaxy, solar system, planet and successively smaller echelons of development going down to the chemical level suggest there is intelligence in all of this? There are those of us that are willing to allow more possibilities, such as intelligence in the natural world and such a crazy idea like creation when current evidence seems to agree with this theory the best?

I remember on one of the first days of our studies in the evolutionary process in high school the teacher stated that intelligent design/creation studies did not follow the scientific method so they did not count as real scientific arguments/issues. I honestly think my teacher through that tidbit out there because there was enough of the class that would at the very least approach the subject of evolution with a raised eyebrow. After reading Case For a Creator I can now confidently say that the theory of Intelligent Design is a valid theory according to the scientific method. I think Werner Von Braun, seen by many as the father of space science, said it quiet well, "the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

I find it interesting that in the world of the highly educated atheists, they have faith that the evidence for a self sufficient naturalistic theory will come. Yet their hope is called science because it concerns a scientific theory at hand. I cannot remember what periodical that I read, commenting on the ID debate going on in Pennsylvania, but it opened with such a statement somewhere along the lines of "all scientists agree that evolution is fact." Something that rivaled such a claim as a PBS documentary that had a response of 100 renowned scientists stating that the theory of evolution is far from settled and is not in the best of condition. To me maybe it is just the media's assumption similar to that of Lee Strobel in his own search or lack of search until he was really challenged those years ago to investigate Christianity, Faith and his most recent book Creation. To have a basis that something I took as fact actually being recognized by more than the Christian science organization I find empowering. In addition to requiring some serious faith in evidence that will prove a theory, it breaks the line between science and faith that is supposed to be present in the search for truth.

Remember faith is a hope in what is unseen and untouched? Be it an immaterial being like a spirit or empirical evidence. If I started to get into the discussion of consciousness that would drive atheists into another hard spot. Atheism implies the materialist point of view; Christianity implies a form of the dualist point of view. Correct me if I am wrong but if one is limited to a certain point of view such as the materialist limited to that of the physical world then isn't it only natural that a mindset that allows for something beyond the physical is more open minded? After all isn't that the goal of society to be open minded? And yet Christians are criticized because we are so closed minded.

In the midst of the popular secular idea that evolution is the adequate explanation about human origins, I asked myself why that might be. Then it hit me, it makes perfect sense why so much of American society would adhere to such a naturalistic approach? I had to get to college “Intro to Philosophy” before the idea that there is more to the world than the measurable was introduced to me in the realm of public education? Yet, since I can remember we were taught in Sunday school, sermons, and other church lessons, there has been more to life than the measurable from the beginning. I think this issue might give reason to why many people that I have encountered today refuse to believe that there are empirical evidences that support the faith I already had.

Think about this, to a person that had not grown up the possibility of there being more than the empirical world in formal education, is it shocking that so many people would cling to something as improbable as evolution to explain so much of their purpose? The funny thing is that although public education does not touch the subject until our latest stages of education it is something that all of us have pondered on our own just wondering the more basic and puzzling questions of our existence at some time or another. Maybe that could turn into a movement to include philosophy in more high schools, then again I have heard that it is a subject in many high schools, just not at the one I attended. These months that I have been actively seeking out the materials and arguments of many people I have heard about I honestly believe that there is enough information that if enough Christians would present it to the world I think we can change the course our country has been taking for years.

As I mentioned in Why Don’t I, I recently watched a sermon series about the reliability of the Gospels. I heard similar information that I read about when I attended the Alpha course about what history books use as valid history for the Roman empire. For instance, the ancient histories we have about the first century are based off of the Gallic Wars and the writings of Tacitus. Of the 10 copies known the earliest copy of the Gallic Wars is dated 900 AD. Tacitus wrote 30 volumes, we have 2 copies of half of what he wrote and his copies are dated at 900 and 1100AD. Historians do not dispute the information and history in those ancient texts. Why do so many people dismiss the historical value that the Gospels contain when there are thousands of copies that have been dated to be 50-70AD? Even better, there are copies of Paul's letters that are dated up to 2 years after Christ's death. Why do intelligent people toss those documents aside because they are "religious"? It is because they report supernatural things, namely Christ's miracles? People will use their bias and experience that miracles can't happen and that in turn makes the miracles in scripture unbelievable. Why else would logically thinking people disregard ancient texts about a Jewish carpenter that are in greater number and detail than the cumulative history of the Roman Empire in the first century?