Human origins is a fascinating area of research today. With all the different models for the origins of humanity being proposed, I see an increase in the discussions, both scientific and theological. For everyone reading this post, this area of research should be of utmost interest for you as well. Two critical ideas about humanity are at stake depending on which model (or family of models) is true: intrinsic and equal human dignity and value, and the sinfulness of humanity.
The age-old debate about God's existence has great implications on this area of the debate about human origins. The Judeo-Christian claim that all humans are created in God's Image and that humans possess a sin nature that will cause them to tend toward the immoral. These paradoxical doctrines together explain both the greatness and wretchedness of humanity that we see everyday, throughout history, and expect in the future.
Many atheists today are embracing the fact that their worldview cannot support the existence of objective morality, purpose, or meaning. When objective morality, purpose, and meaning do not exist, that frees the individual to create their own morality, purpose, and meaning without the threat of judgment or damnation based upon their choices.
For the atheist, in a sense, this is quite freeing. It allows anyone and everyone to do whatever they want without any guilt or social discomfort. The freedom to do what one wants without limits opens up a world of possibilities that many have never even dreamed.
The very origin and existence of gratitude provide evidence of the truth of Christianity.
Introduction
Is it possible that gratitude points to the true worldview? I believe so; in fact, I believe that gratitude's origin, practice, and acceptance as true all help to eliminate certain worldviews and is strongly supported by another one. Everything from the origin of gratitude to its practice in everyday life points to the truth of the Christian worldview. Allow me to explain.
Origins and Survival of Gratitude
It is quite a challenge for gratitude to take hold in a culture of organisms that are fighting for the existential survival of the fittest among the individuals. Gratitude may be shown to another party in multiple ways, usually involving the giving of some resource, to the disadvantage of the grateful party. If the other party does not see value in the gratitude, they may respond by further reducing the grateful party's resources to the point of elimination of that party. Given simple survival-of-the-fittest naturalism, gratitude did not stand a chance to survive as a characteristic of the "fittest" of organisms.
Gratitude, from a naturalistic evolutionary psychological point of view, does not have a chance to originate, must less survive. The fact that gratitude has survived and is commonly extended and accepted by parties today indicates that there were more than just naturalistic mechanisms involved in its origin and survival. If more than naturalism is required for gratitude, then naturalism (atheism) has been eliminated as a viable explanation for the world that we see and experience every day. I go into more detail on this in my post "Thanksgiving, Evolution, and Design."
Gratitude Requires Agency
In that post, I explain that gratitude requires two subjects: the one communicating gratitude and the one the gratitude is communicated to. Both of these subjects must be free agents capable of choosing to (or not to) extend and accept the gratitude. Naturalism does not have the resources for agents to truly exist- all "agents" in naturalism are ultimately just different configurations of deterministically controlled (no free choice at all) matter, thus all gratitude (extended or accepted) is robotic and not true or authentic. Ultimately, if naturalism is true, not only is the environment antagonistic for gratitude's origin (and survival), gratitude is not truly extended or accepted anyway.
The fact that we all know that we have a free choice to authentically extend gratitude and a free choice to authentically accept gratitude tells us that agents exist and that naturalism is, therefore, false. In his book "Agents Under Fire," philosopher of mind Dr. Angus Menuge goes into great detail about the current state of the debate over the existence of actual agents in reality and naturalists' attempts to explain their existence. See my review of the book here: Book Review: Agents Under Fire. Ultimately, naturalism only has room for imitations (no matter how sophisticated) of free will and thus it only has room for imitations (no matter how sophisticated) of gratitude.
The Morality of Gratitude
Most people would grant that it is better to be grateful than to not be grateful. This "better" judgement is not merely understood to be a judgement of practicality; it is understood to be a judgement of morality. There is a clear distinction between practicality and morality that people generally recognize, and gratitude (independent of a practicality judgement) is understood to have a "good" moral judgement. And this judgement is not just a subjective opinion about morality but an objective claim that is independent of how many people do claim or do believe it or do not claim or do not believe it.
If naturalism is true, then all morality reduces to practicality, and practicality and morality ultimately are not independent of or even distinct from one another. On naturalism, the "moral" status of a specific instance of offering gratitude is necessarily dependent upon its practical implications. Which means that if showing gratitude could result in negative effects on the one showing the gratitude (such as in gratitude's natural origins), then it is judged to be immoral. But most people understand that showing gratitude is never immoral. And since naturalism does not allow for such a judgement, naturalism is defeated on this third count.
But That's Not All!
Naturalism is not the only worldview defeated by these three tests of reality. Any worldview that denies the existence of free will and/or agents is defeated (this would include worldviews like atheism, Buddhism, deism, and some forms of theism that deny free will). Any worldview that does not allow for the distinction between practicality and morality is also defeated (this would include atheism, pantheism, panentheism, new age and other occultic worldviews). And the most sweeping test of the three: Any worldview that posits a naturalistic origin of human psychology is defeated (this would be all non-theistic worldviews). When taken together, every atheistic, pantheistic, deistic, and deterministic worldview is removed from the table of possibility by the existence of gratitude.
What Is Left?
Ultimately, Christianity is the only worldview that escapes all three of these severe tests. But it is not always enough to merely exercise the use of the process of elimination to arrive at the final answer. We need to positively identify Christianity as the correct worldview to explain the existence of true, authentic gratitude.
First, let's examine where we left off: the distinction between practicality and morality. Practicality is a judgement based upon something's ability to bring a purpose or goal closer to fruition. Something is said to be "good" if it brings the goal closer, and it is said to be "bad" or "evil" if it moves the goal further away. An example would be a "good" move in the game of Chess would bring the player closer to check-mating his or her opponent. The philosophical term for these is "teleology;" it is a judgement based upon a purpose. Morality (that is the philosophical term, by the way), on the other hand is a judgement of intrinsic right and wrong that is independent of teleological implications. For instance, it is morally good (right) to run into a burning house to save the life of a stranger's child even if it would result in the (practical) loss of our own life. Self-sacrifice is morally good despite its teleological wrongness.
However, without some objective standard by which to judge right and wrong, there is only subjective or relative opinion, which ultimately would lead to "might makes right." With Christianity, God is the standard by which moral judgments are made. This standard is independent of how many of whoever believes whichever way. If one society believes that murder is good and another believes that it is evil, the objective standard of God's nature allows us to know which society is right and which is wrong. This video from Reasonable Faith helps to explain morality:
Last year I came across an article about a study that empirically demonstrates seven benefits of gratitude. The problem for the atheist (or agnostic or skeptic) is that unless Christianity is true, gratitude is nothing more than a generally "useful fiction"- evolution has preserved those who embrace falsehood in order to survive not those who embrace truth. If your intellectual goal is to go beyond what simply works to what is true, then Christianity is the only worldview that makes sense of all the evidence, including the ability to make sense of evidence (philosopher Alvin Plantinga goes into great detail on this implication in his book "Where the Conflict Really Lies"). I like how Os Guiness explains the reality that we experience and how it relates to the truth of Christianity:
Conclusion
Christianity is not true because gratitude works; gratitude works because Christianity is true. Gratitude merely reflects this reality. If you understand the value of gratitude, it is time to take your understanding of it beyond mere pragmatism to discover its foundation and why it works. As we move into the Christmas season it is the most appropriate time to investigate the evidence for the truth of Christianity. Start with investigating the linchpin of Christianity: the claim of the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here is a post that provides an overview of the evidence: Did the Historical Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? I encourage you to also follow the links contained in the post to dig deeper into the details of the evidence.
It is commonly claimed that Christianity is a science-stopper. What is usually put forth to justify this claim is that many Christians are content to look at nature and say "God did it," without looking further to discover how God did whatever "it" happens to be. For many Christians, questions about the origin and function of the natural world end with that answer. However, for many others, while they recognize that God did indeed do something, they seek diligently to discover how God did it. Christianity does not stop science, a lack of curiosity or concern (not necessarily a bad thing if those are not a person's passion or pursuit) is what could stop science, if no Christian exists who possesses that curiosity. Individual Christians can choose to stop scientific discovery for themselves, but because scientific discovery will continue for other individual Christians, scientific discovery will continue.
On the other hand, atheism actually does stop science. Not because an atheist is content to say "evolution did it" and cease exploratory research, but it is stopped rather for a few other reasons that the atheist cannot escape if their worldview is true. If atheism is true, scientific discovery does not cease just for the atheist whose curiosity and concern are satisfied by the answer "evolution did it," but it ceases for everyone.
If you are a friend of science and an atheist, I implore you to take your thinking to the next level: think about how you can think about discovery of the world around you. In today's blog post, I will present six different ways that atheism mutually excludes science and stops all scientific discovery in its tracks.
Without God, Do We All "Bleed The Same"?- Introduction
Without God, the war against racism makes no sense at all. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. grounded his fight and mission in the fact that God exists, because he knew that without God, so many foundations of such a fight are nonexistent. I was recently made aware of this beautiful song by Mandisa (featuring TobyMac and Kirk Franklin) addressing the tensions that still plague America today. Please take the time to listen, then read below to see how nothing that moved your heart in this video can be explained unless Christianity is the true worldview.
What a beautiful song that should express the heart and desire of every human. However, unless the view promoted by the song has a foundation in reality, then our emotions are merely playing a trick on us to believe that something is true and noble when those are merely illusions. There areseveral foundations that disappear if Christianity is false, but I want to focus on three today:
A month or so ago, I came across an interesting challenge to Christianity. A skeptic told me that religion was an exercise in avoiding truth- a willful delusion. He observed that many Christians (and religious people, in general) tend to believe the claims of their "holy" books over what has been discovered about nature, history, or the very nature of reality. He noticed that many religious people have a precommitment to a particular understanding of the world and no amount of evidence provided will persuade them otherwise. He, as an intellectual, does not want to make this same mistake. In this post, I want to explore the possibility that he is making the same mistake based upon the philosophical foundations of the claim he makes for rejecting religion, and Christianity specifically.
This review has been a long time coming. I first heard of Alvin Plantinga and his "evolutionary argument against naturalism" several years ago. I was impressed by the original paper, and when I heard that he wrote a whole book on it, I was quite excited. As a defender of the Christian worldview, I constantly come across skeptics who believe that there is a glaring conflict between science and faith. I have defended the complete compatibility of modern science with the claims of Christianity using the sciences and some philosophy. My reading "Where the Conflict Really Lies" by Alvin Plantinga is an attempt to expand my philosophical defense. Is it successful? This review will provide a chapter-by-chapter summary of the book that will conclude with my thoughts.
Part 1: Alleged Conflict
Chapter 1: Evolution and Christian Belief (1)
Plantinga begins by explaining that over the centuries many people have claimed there is conflict between science and Christianity. The only thing that has changed is the source of the claimed conflict- biology not astronomy. He explains it is important to define our terms in order to properly identify any conflict. He uses common affirmations of the historic Christian creeds regarding creation as a source for the minimum necessary claims of Christianity: God is the creator. As for science, he takes the current scientific theory and breaks it into its mere components: an ancient earth, rise in complexity of life over time, descent with modification, common ancestry, naturalistic mechanisms, and naturalistic origin of life. He explains that conflict has been alleged between the first scientific thesis (an ancient earth) and the interpretation of the Bible by some Christians, but since age is not part of the Christian creeds, he concludes that the conflict is merely superficial and not actual.
Richard Dawkins is one scientist who also alleges great conflict between science and the Bible. Plantinga addresses Dawkins' argument that modern evolutionary theory has revealed a universe without design. He shows that while Dawkins may be able to envision a general naturalistic mechanism to get complex systems, he has not proposed a detailed map from the simple to the complex, nor has he provided any scientific evidence of the details of a mechanism that would produce the specific points on the map. Plantinga also addresses Dawkins' appeals to probability and the claim that God, Himself, would require a designer. He concludes that Dawkins has not demonstrated that evolution (even if it is correct) can take place independent of an intelligent agent guiding the process.
One of the teleological arguments for God's existence comes from the combination of the incredible complexity and large variation of life and the cosmologically minute amount of time that is permitted by this universe to accomplish such a feat. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross explains:
"As astronomical advances proved the universe to be some 10 to 15 billions years old a majority of both scientists and Christians mistakenly assumed that billions of years allowed ample time for a naturalistic account of life. This error has been costly. Recent scholarship increasingly reveals that time boundaries as brief as only several billions years constrict evolutionary theory so tightly, particularly concerning life's origin, as to strangle it. In other words, a 14-billion-year-old universe is too young for any conceivable natural-process scenario to yield on its own, even the simplest living organism."
Dr. Ross has spent the last few decades studying the universe and what must be in place for it to be hospitable for life's creation and thriving. It turns out that the full age of the universe is not the total amount of time available; indeed, the time is much shorter (nearer to 4 billion years). This constrains the naturalistic process even further. But even if it did have the full age of the universe, 14 billion years is several orders of magnitude too young.
Ten years ago Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fazale Rana of Reasons to Believe released their book "Who Was Adam?" that presented a scientific model the posited that Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis were the original pair of humans. They examined the latest discoveries and put forth predictions for the scientific community to evaluate. That book was one of my first apologetics books I read that convinced me of the historical accuracy of the Genesis account of origins. A decade later the authors have released a second edition (softcover, Kindle, promo video) that updates the reader on the latest discoveries regarding the origins of humanity. This is one that I have been anticipating for at least two years; let's see if it lives up to it.
With this edition, Ross and Rana chose to keep the original edition intact in the first two parts of the book then evaluate the model in the third part. This review will provide a chapter-by-chapter summary of the book's contents to give the reader an idea of what to expect, but this review in no way should take the place of reading the book itself. I will conclude the book with my thoughts and recommendation.
How did life begin? This question has perplexed humanity for centuries. Some people believe that it came along by natural processes. Others believe that a divine Designer is behind it all. These two options go head-to-head, tested against the latest scientific research in the book "Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off" (hardcover, Kindle, Supplemental Site) by astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross and biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana. The book is divided into three sections, seventeen chapters, and 298 pages (including notes and appendices). This review provides a chapter-by-chapter summary of the contents of the book, but it must not be accepted as a replacement for reading the book, itself. The review will conclude with my thoughts and recommendation.
Drs. Ross and Rana take the position that the origin of life is by divine design. To scientifically test their hypothesis, they present their model, competing models, and the latest research; they then compare the predictions of the models to the research to build their case. Before examining the current state of origins research, it is a good idea to take a quick look at the events that led to the current state.
"Programming of Life" by Donald E. Johnson (paperback, video, quotes) came to my attention fairly recently. The prospect of a case for God's existence being made from my area of training (computer science) especially caught my attention. The fact that the author is formally trained in both information science and biochemistry seemed to give him a unique set of credentials to authoritatively compare the code in DNA to computer programming code. The book is short at only 127 pages (included appendixes) and is divided into nine chapters. This review will be a chapter-by-chapter summary, but should not be confused with providing Johnson's case comprehensively or precisely.
Tonight Bill Nye and Ken Ham squared off on the topic "Is Creation a Viable Model for Origins In The Scientific Era?" Promoters of this debate have been promoting it as the "Debate of the Decade" and I had even heard the term "Scopes 2." Because I am a Christian and I disagree with Ken Ham's position on the age of the universe (I agree with Bill Nye, in that regard, but disagree with his worldview in general), it seems that I would be rooting for both or neither in the debate. Since I find that holding an incorrect view of reality (even within the confines of the correct general worldview) is damaging to defenses of the general worldview, I decided to watch this debate and offer my thoughts.
First, I want to state that I found that both participants were very respectful of one another so, it made the exchange easy to watch in that respect. What makes a debate more difficult to watch depends on the participants' ability to stay on topic and defend their contentions against critique. While I think that for the most part, they did stay on topic, there was a mix regarding their defense of particular parts of their contentions.
It recently came to my attention that Ken Ham and Bill Nye will be debating the wisdom of teaching creationism in the classroom. While I agree with Ken Ham that Christianity is the correct worldview, and that creation does deserve to be examined, I do not support his specific view of creation (young-earth creationism or "YEC"). I have critiqued arguments for this view (here, here, and here), along with Ken Ham's tactics (here and here). And other than remembering Bill Nye's TV show in the 90's and a recent anti-creationism video, I'm not too familiar with him. What I have to say here will focus more on the content to be debated and possible ways it could go (along with a couple I expect from Ham based on my familiarity of his past exchanges).
Introduction
Something that has been going through my head recently is the concept of "progress". I especially hear it in the context of politics. Some people believe that if a society allows a certain behavior then "progress" has been made. Or if another behavior is allowed then we have "regressed". We talk about progress all the time regarding projects at work, home, or church. But we also talk about progress in sociological contexts- most commonly with social government, same-sex marriage, and abortion (at least that I have seen). I'm not going to debate the merits of any of these three today; rather, I'd like to challenge the idea that theserepresent progress.
Evolution
Many of the people who promote these views tend to be atheistic. They do not believe that a God exists. Consequently they also do not believe that life has any ultimate purpose. Natural processes are responsible for getting the universe from the initial Big Bang to where we are today- humans living together in highly organized societies. Evolution is a continual process. Species emerge, mutate, and eventually become extinct. The process continues in a cycle of emergence and mutation as long as reproduction is possible. A species becomes extinct when it mutates too much to be the original or simply dies off. Either way, all species will become extinct.
Initially, this doesn't seem like much of a problem- the process of evolution appears to not really have much to do with progress. I mean people
assume that humans have value and the comfort of humans is also
valuable. The ultimate purpose of those three ideas above is the comfort
of humans (whether that is valid or not, again, I'm not arguing that today). So where is the issue? I'd like to look at three issues with the concept of "progress" in all worldviews founded in naturalism.
I saw this image on Facebook the other day (states "God isn't an option, He's a necessity"). As a Christian I accept this because it is a part of the truth of Christianity (and consequently, reality). But the unbeliever doesn't tend to accept it or even appreciate the significance of this statement...especially if they claim to know anything (even as minimal as that they exist). Formally put, here is one way to present the argument:
1. Evolution is driven by survivability of organisms
2. Human brains and senses are the product of evolution
3. Therefore human brains' and senses' existence is driven by survivability- From 1 and 2
4. Beliefs come from the human brain reacting to sense experience
5. Therefore beliefs exist based on assistance to survivability- From 3 and 4
6. Humans believe that God exists
7. Therefore the belief that God exists exists based on its assistance to survivability- From 5 and 6
8. God does not exist
9. Therefore evolution favors false beliefs over true beliefs if the false belief helps survivability more than the true belief- From 7 and 8
10. Therefore the human brain and senses cannot be trusted to yield truth about reality (knowledge)- From 2 and 9
I have always been a curious person. I love to ask questions. What things work, how they work, and why they work. Math and the sciences had a great appeal to me in school. I always interacted with the teacher or professor. I was always trying to make connections among different pieces of knowledge that I was being taught. As I got older, if someone told me something, I liked to know how they obtained that knowledge and how it related to other knowledge I already had.
This continues even today. As a result, I've never been one to not challenge someone who I suspected was giving me wrong information. But I don't challenge just for the sake of challenging. I challenge in order to find the correct connections among facts. I challenge so that I may discover the truth.
On Monday (Jan 21st, 2013), America will celebrate the life of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.- a man dedicated to the fact that all men are created equal and should be treated that way. Americans owe humble respect to Reverend King for his dedication (that led to his assassination) to this noble ideal.
I find it extremely interesting that many naturalists promote King's idea of human equality. But is that promotion compatible with naturalism? Human equality is a Judeo-Christian concept that is foreign to any worldview that must rely upon naturalistic evolution to explain the existence of the human race. Here's what I mean:
Survival of the Fittest
One of the major pillars of naturalistic, evolution is "survival of the fittest". This simply means that the lifeforms most fit for a certain environment will propagate their offspring into the next generation; lifeforms that possess any feature that inhibits their survival, will eventually die off. Value is assigned based on this survivability.
Notice the superlative language of the pillar- "fittest". In order for a superlative to exist, there must exist another that it is superlative when compared to. If humans are the result of "survival of the fittest" and we are not the end of evolution (mutations are still taking place today, so I guess we're not), then some members of our species are superlative to others. The genes of the superlative humans will survive into the future.
The other day I heard a fellow Christian complain that atheists are constantly complaining that Christians try to "force their beliefs on people". The Christian complained that the atheist has no right to complain because he is doing the exact same thing. This caught my ear for a few reasons.
First, that critique cuts in all directions. Any person who believes that they teach the truth will automatically see a person who differs with them and teaches those differing views with just as much passion as a threat to their beliefs being accepted. People do tend to use propagandistic language when describing the teaching of beliefs that they do not agree with. Christians tend to think that public education is forcing atheist and relativist propaganda on our kids. Atheists and relativists believe that we are forcing our propaganda on their kids. Christians should not be complaining about others behaving in the same way that we do. I'm pretty sure that such hypocrisy turns people away from the Church- not because they think that Christianity is false, but because its adherents don't practice what it teaches.
Thanksgiving is a holiday that I see has lost a lot of its meaning in American society. I remember being taught that Thanksgiving was a time to stop and thank God for everything that he has bestowed upon us (be it material goods, health, understanding or anything- even suffering).
It seems quite difficult to do such a thing when America has abandoned belief in a personal God who affects our lives or has abandoned belief in God completely. I would hope that I would be able to see people at least showing gratitude to each other for something, but I don't even see that anymore. Instead, I see people calling it "Turkey Day", almost in an effort to remove the idea of being thankful to anyone for anything- which is a direct logical conclusion of America's narcissistic materialism ("its all about me").
Introduction
Recently I saw the movie "Transformers: The Dark of the Moon". I almost made it through the whole thing without a single thought about worldviews, philosophy, or apologetics. But, alas, near the end, something happened that my mind couldn't ignore (I pulled out my phone and immediately started taking notes).
For those who are unfamiliar with the Transformers' basic premise: there exists three species in the universe that are essentially battling for survival and a "leg up" on the others: humans, Autobots, and Decepticons. Typically, the Decepticons are trying to achieve something that would have the implication of destroying the humans and/or Autobots. The Autobots are the more "noble" of the two robotic species that join forces with the humans against the Decepticons. This particular installment had two characters that I will be focusing on here: Optimus Prime and Sential Prime (Primes are the leaders of the Autobots; they tend to be the wiser and more powerful individuals). SPOILER ALERT: the rest of this post contains storyline details that take place in the last minutes of the movie, so if you haven't seen it and plan to (and don't want it ruined), stop reading now.
Introduction
