I was fairly close to both Angela and Jacob throughout our teens; at least, we were all part of the same circle. I briefly entertained the hope of something closer between Angela and myself, and for a few weeks she was more or less my girlfriend; but Jacob “swept her off her feet,” and they were at one school and I at another, so I had no chance. It made no difference to our friendship, though.
Unfortunately, I largely lost touch with Angela when I started attending university. Over the course of the next six months, we crossed one another’s paths only three times or so. On the last occasion, she had just returned from a visit to Paris, from which she had brought home, among other things, the Pléiade edition of Montaigne she proudly showed me.
And that was that. Two and a half years later she was killed when a drunk driver struck her car in an intersection; she was alive for several hours after the collision, but never regained consciousness. That was twenty-five years ago tomorrow.
I learned of her death three days after, from Jacob. (Their romance had not survived their remove to separate colleges, but they had remained friends.) I won’t bother to say how the news affected me, but I will remark that I had had what in retrospect seemed to have been a premonition of it. On the night of her death, Angela had suddenly, for no discernible reason, come into my mind, attended by an inexplicable sense of aching melancholy, which at the time I simply took for acute nostalgia.
Jacob, though, had had something that seemed like much more than a premonition. On the night of Angela’s accident, apparently during the hours when she was lying in the hospital unconscious but still breathing, he had had a particularly vivid dream in which she and he had spoken to one another in a strange house that, after the fashion of dreams, was also somehow a garden (if I have the details right).
Their conversation, which had been pervasively sad, concerned her imminent departure for somewhere far away; and it seemed to Jacob that it was understood between them—in that way in which, in dreams, many unspoken things seem simply to be presumed—that she was leaving on a journey from which she would never return. She told him, he recalled, that she had come only to say good-bye.
Now, these things—my vague intuitions, Jacob’s haunting dream—may have been merely coincidences; but, frankly, I can’t make myself believe that the universe is quite large enough to accommodate coincidences of that kind. What was most extraordinary about our experiences, however, is that they were not that extraordinary at all.
That is, it is rather astonishing how common these encounters with the uncanny really are. You may not recall any yourself, but it is quite likely that you need only ask around among your acquaintances to discover someone who does. I myself have had at least two others, one utterly trivial, one of the most crucial importance, and both together sufficient to convince me that consciousness is not moored to the present moment or local space in quite the same way that the body is.
The mind can, of course, deceive itself; it can retrospectively fabricate spectral connections or occult sympathies and convince itself they were there all along. But there are still a great many experiences that resist any too effortlessly reductive an explanation.
There was a period of two or three years, for instance, when a member of my extended family temporarily acquired the unsettling habit of dreaming abnormally clear dreams that later came true (as well as several that did not). I was even present on one occasion, under circumstances neither of us could have foreseen or planned, when a dream he had described to me months earlier came to pass.
What does it all mean, though?
Well, obviously, persons who have known such moments are unlikely to be convinced by any purely materialist account of consciousness, at least of the “mechanical philosophy” variety. The confirmed “physicalists” among them might toy with ideas drawn from, say, some of the more stochastically adventurous quantum theories of consciousness, but mostly out of desperation.
Whatever the case, though, such experiences should chiefly remind us how many and how deep the mysteries of consciousness really are. And the profoundest mystery of consciousness is consciousness itself, because we really have little or no clear idea what it is, or how it could either arise from or ally itself to the material mechanisms of the brain.
There are, of course, intellectually serious books with titles like How the Mind Works (Steven Pinker) or Consciousness Explained (Daniel Dennett), but the preponderant consensus in the philosophical world is that they do not deliver more than a fraction of what they promise. The logical high ground is still occupied by consciousness “mysterians” like Colin McGinn or, at least, by skeptics like John Searle.
Most attempts to describe the mind entirely as an emergent quality of the brain, or as another name for the brain’s machinery, not only fail convincingly to bridge the qualitative distance between sensory impression and coherent thought, but invariably bracket out of consideration a great deal of what any scrupulous phenomenology of consciousness reveals. Certainly they do not seem to explain the “transcendental” conditions by which consciousness is organized: that primordial act within and prior to all our other acts of mind and will; that constant mediation between thought and world that we both perform and suffer in advance of all experience or volition.
Consciousness has not been explained until one can provide a comprehensive picture of how the mind not only “fits” the world, but also “intends” and “constitutes” it as an intelligible phenomenon. And that is not the straightforward mechanical problem it is often mistaken for.
But these are matters that have been tormenting philosophers and cognitive scientists for decades, and they will not be resolved by any arguments or any science currently at our command. And, anyway, even if humanity should some day penetrate the ordinary mysteries of consciousness, the more extraordinary mysteries will probably remain, and continue to urge human beings to think in terms not only of the mind, but of the soul.
Whatever the case, I cannot help but believe that on the night when Angela lay dying, some portion of my consciousness was remotely, flickeringly aware of the fact; and that she, or something of her, was able to reach out into Jacob’s dream to make her farewells. But, even in admitting I believe such things, I would never claim to understand them.
David B. Hart is a contributing writer of First Things. His most recent book is Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies.
By: David Limbaugh
As my friends' kids leave the nest for their first year away at college, I think of the monolithic ideas with which they will surely be bombarded in an environment that is supposed to expose them to a variety of ideas. Are they prepared to resist the seductive but destructive message?
Liberal elites have dominated most university faculties for years, but it seems they've become bolder, more radical, and more militant. It is not their ideas I fear, because Christianity and conservatism stand up to truth challenges. It is the moral preening, the politicization of academics, the peer pressure, the revisionist distortions, and the potential discrimination against dissenters.
You know the drill. The professorate will aggressively beat into your children's heads that America is not the greatest nation in history, but largely responsible, through action or inaction, for much of the suffering in the world and that it is imperialistic, exploitive and selfish.
They'll say that Christianity is narrow, intolerant, anti-intellectual, anti-science, homophobic, hateful, and judgmental and that capitalism is corrupt and skewed toward the "rich" and big corporations. They'll say or imply that political conservatism is inherently racist, homophobic, sexist, militaristic, unenlightened, close-minded, mean-spirited, and uncompassionate.
As parents, are you aware that the above scenario is likely to play out to some extent at most universities? Do you disagree or think it's not a big deal? Do you believe your kids are immune from this inevitable onslaught? Are you confident that even if they are exposed to such slander, they will reject it as inconsistent with their own personal experiences?
Are you sure, for example, that your kids have the discernment to recognize the disinformation that Christianity and conservatism are hardhearted, selfish, hateful, bigoted, and intellectually backward and the strength to oppose it? Apart from your kids' presumed respect for you, do they have the intellectual ammunition and the spiritual armor to resist the pressure to conform?
Parents who find themselves in this position must not be complacent, assuming naively that they've done all they can do and that their kids have picked up, by osmosis or example, a proper and sustaining worldview orientation. Though they have been exposed to a culture war since they first started watching TV and going to movies, they are about to enter a new, intensified phase of it.
Christian parents should not assume their kids are equipped to filter out the false claims they will likely encounter. Christianity is the opposite of how it is often portrayed in our culture and is none of those negative things indicated above. You owe it to yourselves and your kids to anticipate the attacks and think through how they can be countered.
Don't assume your excellent child rearing will be enough. We must stand up to the challenge and test our own faith, if necessary, reviewing what and why we believe. If we can't explain it, should we expect our kids to understand it?
Please don't dismiss these warnings as my opportunistic construction of a straw man. As my friend Frank Turek warns, "Christian young people are leaving the church at an alarming rate, mainly because they are not equipped to examine the skepticism and atheism they encounter, often coming from their college professors, after leaving home."
So do your homework and help arm your kids. Or consult other sources for help, such as Frank's website, CrossExamined.org, which has information on how you can help teach or reinforce in your kids why Christianity is true and reasonable — and loving.
Likewise, as politically conservative parents, you should help insulate your kids from the propaganda coming their way. You might want to first remind them that a strong majority of Americans are center-right and reject most of the ideas being forced on us by the vocal, strident, and extreme leftist minority in this country.
Next, of course, you need to address the specific libels hurled at conservatives and substantively respond to and refute the claims that they are bigoted, selfish, and unreasonable.
If you have time to address little else, at least strive to explain to your kids in a thoughtful way why conservatism is not only not uncompassionate but also more compassionate, open-minded, tolerant, science-compatible, and consistent with our human experiences than liberalism. You must do what you can to help prevent your kids from being shamed into liberalism through its false claim of having a monopoly on compassion.
Parents, are you prepared? Are your kids? Can we agree we have some work to do?
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His new book, "Crimes Against Liberty," will come out later this month. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website at www.DavidLimbaugh.com.
Cindy Jacobs:
An Urgent Call for Massive Intercession
Dear Believers in Christ,
A few days ago as I watched a news business channel, I received the following word from the Lord. As you can tell, it's a serious warning. I know the nation is in a delicate condition now, but I believe that I need to send this word out. I ran it by Chuck Pierce and he said that it fits with what he has been hearing, only more specific on the economic side.
This is a wake up and it's so strong.
A Serious Warning and a Call for Urgent Prayer
A warning received from the Lord on July 17, 2010 in Dallas, Texas:
A few days ago as I watched the financial news, the Lord clearly spoke these words to me, "The nation is teetering!" I then had a vision of the economy of the United States, on what looked like a "scale of justice." He then went on to show me that we must fast, pray and cry out to the Lord for mercy and solutions that will balance righteousness and justice.
In praying to the Lord for wisdom about this word, I realized what must be done—it is time for the Church in America to stand up and take her place once again in the nation. I mulled over the fact that we have already lost so many of our liberties and this is what I heard, "If the Church doesn't fast and pray for a faster acceleration of revival and awakening, the iniquitous sin structures in the nation will tip the scale that is teetering and there will be another great depression."
Of course, this word shook me to the core of my being. Many of you may be aware that the Holy Spirit spoke to me almost a year before the September 2008 economic meltdown, that there would be "no more business as usual."
The balance of the economy is fragile and depending on the way we fast, pray, and how we cast our votes in the next election will depend on which way the scale tips. We must pray and do. We must pray and act. We must awaken the Church to the state of the nation without fear of pleasing man or fear for our reputation.
God is watching to see which way the die will be cast. If we shift the nation to Biblical values in the arenas of righteousness and justice, the economy will follow. If we continue in our stance of support for Israel, the Stock Market will stabilize and prosper, and that which is fragile will become strong. Supernatural solutions will be sent from Heaven that our natural minds could never reason, nor grasp and they will heal the land.
If we do not heed in this hour there will be a tumbling of our economy and dark days will be ahead to such a degree that our nation will possibly never fully recover from and have the greatness as a nation that God has favored us with for generations.
God have mercy. God send an awakening. God send salvation.
Cindy Jacobs
Generals International
Email: generals@generals.org
Thank you to everyone who was instrumental in helping facilitate and get the word out about the apologetics conference this weekend. The event was very successful, though the spiritual warfare was painfully evident. New England is a stronghold of the enemy for many reasons. Putting together an event which spoke truth to the power of the enemy resulted in some pretty crazy things. First, a number of the presenters fell desperately ill...me included. Looking back, it was a blessing because this was one event which clearly showed how God can overcome and pick you up when you are unable to walk. Second, we only had 50 registrations a few weeks before the event. We ended up serving about 150 people. MOre importantly, many of the people that came are committed to bringing the teachings to their local churches. We had many requests for follow ups at the local level. This was a blessing because our goal was to reintroduce presuppostional apologetics to an area which had essentially declared apologetics dead.
Here is a copy of my PPT presenation.
Hi Folks,
A good friend and fellow alum from Biola is running a Student Apologetics Course. Please check it out.
Dan
NEW ORLEANS (BP)--Many of the brightest minds in Christian apologetics and philosophy gathered in New Orleans with a common goal -- teaching believers how to defend the Christian faith.
The seventh annual Evangelical Philosophical Society's Apologetics Conference drew a who's who lineup of Christian thinkers skilled in presenting the case for Christianity to a skeptical world. The Nov. 19-21 sessions at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary featured such scholars as Gary Habermas of Liberty University, Ben Witherington III of Asbury Theological Seminary, Doug Geivett of Talbot School of Theology, James Walker of Watchman Fellowship and others -- 21 speakers in all.
The apologetics conference is held in conjunction with the annual meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society and Evangelical Philosophical Society. This year's ETS/EPS meetings were held in New Orleans Nov. 18-20.
"We have to know why we believe what we believe," said J.P. Moreland, distinguished professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in Mirada, Calif., in opening the conference with a discussion of why Christian knowledge matters.
"And we have to be able to defend our faith in an increasingly secular culture," Moreland said. "It is no longer an option; it has now become an obligation, given the situation we're in."
Moreland said three worldviews now dominate Western culture: scientific naturalism, postmodernism and Christianity, each with a different understanding of knowledge.
Those who hold to scientific naturalism, which Moreland described as the most prevalent worldview today, believe that knowledge of reality comes only from science; for something to be known, it must be proven empirically.
Postmoderns believe that truth is relative to individual cultures, Moreland said. They believe that something can be "true" for one culture but not for another.
The third worldview is Christianity; while scientific naturalism and postmodernism have gained wide acceptance, Moreland said the Christian worldview has not been completely marginalized. It remains "a vibrant worldview in this culture and it is still having an impact throughout society," he said.
Some proponents of scientific naturalism and postmodernism deny any possibility that Christianity might be true. Still others argue that even if Christianity is true, it cannot be known to be true. Moreland argued that not only is Christianity true, but its truthfulness can also be known.
Moreland said that the words "know" and "believe" carry different authority, with people in Western culture being accorded authority based on knowledge rather than belief.
"It is very, very important for you and for me to recapture this idea that there is knowledge of God, there is knowledge of the afterlife ... that Jesus Christ has risen from dead."
While Christianity is a true belief backed by adequate reasons, Moreland said some Christians focus more on faith -- often blind faith -- than on knowledge. Warning against this view, Moreland said faith is "trusting what we know to be true" and is based on knowledge, "not a substitute for it."
Timothy McGrew, professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University, encouraged Christians to read works of early apologists such as William Paley, Richard Whately and Thomas Cooper.
McGrew noted that Richard Dawkins and other vocal atheists are borrowing centuries-old arguments from atheists and freethinkers of the past. Because they refuted the same arguments years ago, the ideas of Paley, Whately and Cooper are helpful in dismantling the arguments of current atheists, McGrew said.
McGrew presented a brief overview of the three apologists' major works, adding that many works by these and other apologists are available through the Library of Historical Apologetics website (www.historicalapologetics.org).
The apologetics conference featured presentations by three NOBTS faculty members -- Michael Edens, professor of theology and Islamic studies; Steve Lemke, provost and professor of philosophy and ethics; and Robert Stewart, associate professor of philosophy and theology. Mike Licona, apologetics coordinator for the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board, also led a breakout session during the conference.
Conference organizers developed a youth track to help younger believers develop apologetics skills.
Sean McDowell, a high school teacher, trained apologist and son of noted apologist Josh McDowell, was the featured speaker for the opening session of the youth track, playing the role of an atheist and challenging members of the audience to respond to his arguments against Christianity. Several youth and children participated in the discussion, offering arguments for Christianity. At the end of his presentation, McDowell said he started the conference in this manner to illustrate the sophistication of many atheistic arguments and to encourage youth and youth workers to develop skills to defend their faith.
Prior to the apologetics conference, organizers also hosted local pastors for a luncheon meeting centering on the importance of apologetics training in the local church, with New Orleans Seminary President Chuck Kelley and Tony Merida, teaching pastor at Temple Baptist Church in Hattiesburg, Miss., as featured speakers and J.P. Moreland in a question-and answer-session.
"The most important apologist in America is the pastor a local church," Kelley told the pastors and church leaders.
The local church, from mega-churches to small rural congregations, must be the "cradle" of defenders of the faith, Kelley said. "Everything that happens in the Kingdom of God happens in, around, through and for the benefit of, the local church."
Merida, who serves as a ministry-based faculty member at NOBTS in addition to his work at Temple Baptist, outlined how apologetics can look in a local church setting.
At Temple, Merida said, a church that draws 3,000 to Sunday worship, "a good number" are not prepared to defend the faith. "But we are working toward that, working very hard at equipping them and training them." Apologetics, he said, should be part of every aspect of discipleship.
In addition to the EPS Apologetics Conference, two other apologetics events are slated at New Orleans Seminary in the coming months.
"Confronting the Culture," sponsored by the seminary's Institute for Christian Apologetics, Jan. 3-8, is an apologetics training event open to ministers, lay leaders and students. Seminary credit is available. For more information, visit www.nobtsapologetics.com.
NOBTS' annual Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum, Feb. 26-27, will center on the theme "The Message of Jesus: What Did He Really Teach?" For more information, visit www.greer-heard.com.
--30--
Gary D. Myers is director of public relations at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. NOBTS writer Paul F. South contributed to this article.
We had our first fundraiser last night for a ministry I am involved in called Boston Night of Worship. You are welcome to visit the www.bnow2010.com site to learn more about us. Please check out a video we just put together and praise the Lord.
I am presenting along with this wonderful line up of folks.
Reasons For Believing: June 4-5, 2010
The Marshall Hudson Summer Conference 2010
Where was God in Haiti? Is God really the only way to salvation? What am I to make of the violence in the Bible? Is it the Creation story or my science text book? What do I have to say to my Islamic neighbor?
To pastors, church leaders, and others seeking to understand how to wrestle with the hard questions you face every day: Come be a part of an event designed to offer an apologetics for a new era.
Join three renowned Christian apologists and outstanding workshop leaders as we explore ways in which the church can engage our culture in new ways.
PLENARY SPEAKERS | WORKSHOPS | SCHEDULE | REGISTRATION | BACK TO TOP
Stuart McAllister is Vice President for Training and Special Projects at RZIM’s international headquarters in Atlanta. Born in Scotland, the desire to serve the Lord and to deepen his understanding of the faith led him to Operation Mobilization in 1978. OM sent him to Yugoslavia where he was imprisoned for forty days for distributing Christian literature. Undeterred, he continued to preach the Gospel in communist countries, resulting in several more imprisonments. He is a frequent contributor to A Slice of Infinity, RZIM’s daily reading on issues of apologetics and philosophy, as well as Just Thinking, the ministry’s tri-annual journal. He has also published articles in the books Beyond Opinion (Thomas Nelson Publishing, 2007) and Global Missiology for the 21st Century (World Evangelical Fellowship, 2000).
For more on Stuart at RZIM Ministries, click here.
Mike Licona is the Apologetics Coordinator at the North American Mission Board. He was interviewed by Lee Strobel in his book The Case for the Real Jesus and appeared in Strobel’s video The Case for Christ. Mike has a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies (University of Pretoria), which he completed with distinction. He is the author of Paul Meets Muhammad (Baker, 2006) and co-author with Gary Habermas of the award-winning book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel, 2004). He is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Institute for Biblical Research, and the Society of Biblical Literature. Mike is a frequent speaker on university campuses, at churches, and conferences, and has appeared on dozens of radio and television programs.
For more on Mike and his apologetics ministry, visit www.risenjesus.com.
Patrick Smith is Assistant Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He serves on the National Executive Committee for the Evangelical Philosophical Society and was a member of the steering committee for the 2009 “Earnestly Contending” New England Apologetics Institute. He has given numerous talks, sermons, seminars, and professional presentations on issues in Christian apologetics, theology, moral philosophy, clinical ethics, philosophy of religion, and bioethics at professional meetings, national and regional conferences, in various health care organizations, in churches, on radio, and college and university campuses.
For more on Patrick and GCTS, click here.
PLENARY SPEAKERS | WORKSHOPS | SCHEDULE | REGISTRATION | BACK TO TOP
The Exclusivity of Christ: How Other Religions Perceive Us
Dr. John Jefferson Davis
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics,
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
Holy Jihad! What Are We To Do about Islam?
Dr. Mike Licona
Plenary Speaker
Why Does God Allow Violence?: Story as a Resource for Apologetics
Dr. Elizabeth Shively
Adjunct Professor in New Testament,
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
The Knowability of Truth & Understanding Relativism
Mr. Daniel McCarthy
CEO of Pension Concepts and Taggle
Nature's Story, God's Story: Making Connections between Science and the Bible
Dr. John ZuHone
Postdoctoral Researcher,
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Who Is On Trial?: Suffering and Evil in the Book of Job
Dr. David Horn
Director, Ockenga Institute,
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
PLENARY SPEAKERS | WORKSHOPS | SCHEDULE | REGISTRATION | BACK TO TOP
Friday, June 4
12:00 - 1:30 PM Conference Registration
1:30 - 2:00 PM Worship
2:00 - 3:30 PM Session I: On Being an Apologist and On Doing Apologetics: Some Biblical
Reflections
3:30 - 4:00 PM Break
4:00 - 5:30 PM Session II: Passionate Apologetics
5:30 - 7:00 PM Dinner
7:00 - 8:30 PM Session III: The Historical Case for Jesus' Resurrection
Saturday, June 5
8:30 - 9:00 AM Worship
9:00 - 10:30 AM Session IV: Seeing and Exploring Cultural Connections
10:30 - 11:00 AM Morning Break
11:00 - 12:30 PM Workshop Session I (see above for choices)
12:30 - 1:30 PM Lunch
1:30 - 3:00 PM Workshop Session II (see above for choices)
3:00 - 3:15 PM Afternoon Break
3:15 - 4:30 PM Session V: Panel Q & A
I started reading What Darwin Got Wrong (2010) assuming it was written by two creationists or proponents of intelligent design. To my pleasant surprise, I could not have been more wrong myself! The authors, Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, explicitly describe themselves as “outright, card-carrying, signed-up, dyed-in-the-wool, no-holds-barred atheists” (xiii).
The authors make it clear from the outset that they are not trying to undermine naturalism or even give a boost to creationism or ID. In fact, they probably fear that people like myself will pick up a copy and use it as a critique of naturalism. The main thesis of their book is that “natural selection is irredeemably flawed” (p. 1). They are careful to distinguish between common descent and natural selection, clarifying that they have no problem with the former. But they do consider the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutation as “radically untenable” (p. 44). Natural selection may play a minor role in the development of life, they say, but not possibly the major role assigned to it by evolution supporters. Why?
They note that evolution is believed to have driven the development of life, generating near optimal adaptations for living organisms in different environments. And yet how could a completely blind process do this? (Side note: it’s interesting they argue that things in nature have near optimality since one of the most common objections against ID is the existence of supposed design flaws.) For instance, they refer to leaves that have near perfect shape, honeybees that have developed a nearly optimal foraging strategy, and optimally developed wing strokes in insects (pp. 83-90). Did nature really try all sorts of sub-optimal setups before arriving at these forms of optimality?
They conclude that a blind process that “chooses” optimal features is utterly implausible: “The space of possible solutions to be explored seems too gigantic to have been explored by blind trial and error. The inference appears to be that a highly constrained search must have taken place. Accordingly, the role of natural selection may have been mostly just fine-tuning. Or less” (p. 86). There is simply not enough time in the history of life on earth for the blind mechanism of natural selection to try out innumerable alternative behavioral solutions at each step of the way. A blind process could not result in such optimality.
So, what constrains the search? Their response might surprise you: “It cannot be just good luck when a kind of creature finds itself in a kind of environment in which its kind of phenotype is fit to survive and flourish. Divine solicitude might explain it; everybody knows that God tempers the wind to the shorn lambs. But we are committed to a naturalistic biology, so God is out. What, then, are the naturalistic options?” (142)
This admission confirms what Phillip Johnson has been saying for years: the debate about origins is not really about the science—it’s about philosophy (See Darwin on Trial and more recently Against All Odds: What’s Right and Wrong About the New Atheism). Both sides are looking at the same evidence and yet come to radically different conclusions, based upon the metaphysical assumptions they bring to the table. The reason Darwinism has been the dominant science for the past century (or so) is not because of the evidence, but because of the influence of naturalism. Evolution is the best naturalistic theory of origins around. But the picture looks entirely different without the commitment to naturalism.
Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini take the matter to a whole new level. They admit Darwinism is bankrupt. They admit that they have no mechanism in its place. And yet they still believe that an understanding of the mechanism (which may be centuries away) will be a “deterministic, causal and lawful process through and through” (163). How do they know this? It sounds like a “naturalism of the gaps” to me.
The reason Darwinism has been so widely clung to is because, as Richard Dawkins has said, it allowed atheists to be intellectually fulfilled. If the authors of What Darwin Got Wrong are right, then what does this mean for atheism? There is no natural explanation for the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the origin of life, irreducibly complex features, the Cambrian Explosion, consciousness, and many other features of reality. Should we hold out for a naturalistic explanation for these features, too? What will the bankruptcy of Darwinism mean for atheism? Will other atheists follow their lead? I’d love to know what some of you think.
By the way, I commend the authors for their willingness to challenge the sacred cow of Darwinism. In the preface they rightly point out: “Allegiance to Darwinism has become a litmus for deciding who does, and who does not, hold a ‘properly scientific’ worldview” (xiii). This is what ID proponents have been saying for years. I hope others will take their lead and challenge the status quo as well. Isn’t this what scientists are supposed to do? Ironically, that’s exactly what Darwin did. Unfortunately, it seems, he was wrong.
A point of significant tension among Christian believers, including conservative believers, is the meaning behind Genesis. The range of orthodox beliefs range from the Young Earth View championed by Ken Ham, the Framework View supported by Meredith Kline to the Day Age View supported by Hugh Ross. Last night, I sat in on a presentation by Dr. Jim McClymonds. Jim gained his PhD in Physics from Cornell. He reviewed the different model's mentioned above from an exegetical standpoint. Unlike many presentations which tend to focus on how science interacts with the text, he strictly looked at the internal evidence. He made a very compelling case for the Day Age View. Here is his PPT presentation.
JP Moreland
Philosophy, Theology
04.28.2008
Consciousness is among the most mystifying features of the cosmos. Geoffrey Madell opines that “the emergence of consciousness, then is a mystery, and one to which materialism signally fails to provide an answer.”[i] Naturalist Colin McGinn claims that its arrival borders on sheer magic because there seems to be no naturalistic explanation for it: “How can mere matter originate consciousness? How did evolution convert the water of biological tissue into the wine of consciousness? Consciousness seems like a radical novelty in the universe, not prefigured by the after-effects of the Big Bang; so how did it contrive to spring into being from what preceded it?”[ii] Finally, naturalist William Lyons argues that “[physicalism] seem[s] to be in tune with the scientific materialism of the twentieth century because it [is] a harmonic of the general theme that all there is in the universe is matter and energy and motion and that humans are a product of the evolution of species just as much as buffaloes and beavers are. Evolution is a seamless garment with no holes wherein souls might be inserted from above.”[iii]
Lyons’ reference to souls being “inserted from above” appears to be a veiled reference to the explanatory power of theism for consciousness. Some argue that, while finite mental entities may be inexplicable on a naturalist worldview, they may be explained by theism, thereby furnishing evidence for God’s existence.
The Nature of the Mental
I believe those who argue this way are correct, and in what follows, I shall say why I think this way. As a preliminary, I shall assume a commonsense understanding of mental states such as sensations, thoughts, beliefs, desires, volitions and the selves that have them. So understood, mental states are in no sense physical since they possess five features not owned by physical states:
(a) there is a raw qualitative feel or a “what it is like” to have a mental state such as a pain;
(b) at least many mental states have intentionality—ofness or aboutness–directed towards an object;
(c) mental states are inner, private and immediate to the subject having them;
(d) they require a subjective ontology—namely, mental states are necessarily owned by the first person sentient subjects who have them;
(e) mental states fail to have crucial features (e.g., spatial extension, location) that characterize physical states and, in general, cannot be described using physical language.
The Argument from Consciousness
As mentioned in the introduction, many believe that finite minds provide evidence of a Divine Mind as their creator. If we limit our options to theism and naturalism, it is hard to see how finite consciousness could result from the rearrangement of brute matter; it is easier to see how a Conscious Being could produce finite consciousness since, according to theism, the Basic Being is Himself conscious. Thus, the theist has no need to explain how consciousness can come from materials bereft of it. Consciousness is there from the beginning. To put the point differently, in the beginning there were either particles or the Logos. If you start with particles and just rearrange them according to physical law, you won’t get mind. If you start with Logos, you already have mind.
To expand on this, at least four reasons have been offered for why there is no natural scientific explanation for the existence of mental states (or their regular correlation with physical states):
(a) The uniformity of nature. Prior to the emergence of consciousness, the universe contained nothing but aggregates of particles/waves standing in fields of forces relative to each other. The story of the development of the cosmos is told in terms of the rearrangement of micro-parts into increasingly more complex structures according to natural law. On a naturalist depiction of matter, it is brute mechanical, physical stuff. The emergence of consciousness seems to be a case of getting something from nothing. In general, physico-chemical reactions do not generate consciousness, not even one little bit, but they do in the brain, yet brains seem similar to other parts of organisms bodies (e.g., both are collections of cells totally describable in physical terms). How can like causes produce radically different effects? The appearance of mind is utterly unpredictable and inexplicable. This radical discontinuity seems like an inhomogeneous rupture in the natural world. Similarly, physical states have spatial extension and location but mental states seem to lack spatial features. Space and consciousness sit oddly together. How did spatially-arranged matter conspire to produce non-spatial mental states? From a naturalist point of view, this seems utterly inexplicable.
(b) Contingency of the mind/body correlation. The regular correlation between types of mental states and physical states seems radically contingent. Why do pains instead of itches, thoughts or feelings of love get correlated with specific brain states? No amount of knowledge of the brain state will help to answer this question. For the naturalist, the regularity of mind/body correlations must be taken as contingent brute facts. But these facts are inexplicable from a naturalistic standpoint, and they are radically sui generis compared to all other entities in the naturalist ontology. Thus, it begs the question simply to announce that mental states and their regular correlations with certain brain states is a natural fact. As naturalist Terence Horgan acknowledges, “in any metaphysical framework that deserves labels like `materialism’, `naturalism’, or `physicalism’, supervenient facts must be explainable rather than being sui generis.”[iv] Since on most depictions, the theistic God possesses libertarian freedom, God is free to act or refrain from acting in various ways. Thus, the fact that the existence of consciousness and its precise correlation with matter is contingent fits well with a theistic personal explanation that takes God’s creative action to have been a contingent one. God may be a necessary being, but God’s choice to create conscious beings and to correlate certain types of mental states with certain types of physical states were contingent choices, and this fits nicely with the phenomena themselves.
(c) Epiphenomenalism and causal closure. Most naturalists believe that their worldview requires that all entities whatever are either physical or depend on the physical for their existence and behavior. One implication of this belief is commitment to the causal closure of the physical. On this principle, when one is tracing the causal antecedents of any physical event, one will never have to leave the level of the physical. Physical effects have only physical causes. Rejection of the causal closure principle would imply a rejection of the possibility of a complete and comprehensive physical theory of all physical phenomena—something that no naturalist should reject. Thus, if mental phenomena are genuinely non-physical, then they must be epiphenomena–effects caused by the physical that do not themselves have causal powers. But epiphenomenalism is false. Mental causation seems undeniable and, thus, for the naturalist the mental can be allowed to have causal powers only if it is in some way or another identified with the physical. The admission of epiphenomenal non-physical mental entities may be taken as a refutation of naturalism. As naturalist D. M. Armstrong admits, “I suppose that if the principles involved [in analyzing the single all-embracing spatio-temporal system which is reality] were completely different from the current principles of physics, in particular if they involved appeal to mental entities, such as purposes, we might then count the analysis as a falsification of Naturalism.”[v]
(d) The inadequacy of evolutionary explanations. Naturalists are committed to the view that, in principle, evolutionary explanations can be proffered for the appearance of all organisms and their parts. It is not hard to see how an evolutionary account could be given for new and increasingly complex physical structures that constitute different organisms. However, organisms are black boxes as far as evolution is concerned. As long as an organism, when receiving certain inputs, generates the correct behavioral outputs under the demands of fighting, fleeing, reproducing and feeding, the organism will survive. What goes on inside the organism is irrelevant and only becomes significant for the processes of evolution when an output is produced. Strictly speaking, it is the output, not what caused it, that bears on the struggle for reproductive advantage. Moreover, the functions organisms carry out consciously could just as well have been done unconsciously. Thus, both the sheer existence of conscious states and the precise mental content that constitutes them is outside the pale of evolutionary explanation. As Howard E. Gruber explains:
the idea of either a Planful or an Intervening Providence taking part in the day-to-day operations of the universe was, in effect, a competing theory [to Darwin’s version of evolution]. If one believed that there was a God who had originally designed the world exactly as it has come to be, the theory of evolution through natural selection could be seen as superfluous. Likewise, if one believed in a God who intervened from time to time to create some of the organisms, organs, or functions found in the living world, Darwin’s theory could be seen as superfluous. Any introduction of intelligent planning or decision-making reduces natural selection from the position of a necessary and universal principle to a mere possibility.[vi]
For these reasons, consciousness provides evidence for God’s existence and against evolutionary naturalism.[vii]
——————————————————————————————-
[i] Geoffrey Madell, Mind and Materialism (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1988), p. 141.
[ii] Colin McGinn, The Mysterious Flame ( N.Y.: Basic Books, 1999), pp. 13-14.
[iii] William Lyons, “Introduction,” in Modern Philosophy of Mind, ed. by William Lyons, (London: Everyman, 1995), p. lv.
[iv] Terence Horgan, “Nonreductive Materialism and the Explanatory Autonomy of Psychology,” in Naturalism, ed. Steven J. Wagner, Richard Warner (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993), pp. 313-14.
[v] D. M. Armstrong, “Naturalism: Materialism and First Philosophy,” Philosophia 8 (1978): 262.
[vi] Howard E. Gruber, Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), p. 211.
[vii] For more on this, see J. P. Moreland, Consciousness and the Existence of God (London: Routledge, 2008).
New research is suggesting yet another twist on how evolution creates itself. The research tells us more about epigenetics, so first we need to review how epigenetics has already falsified much of evolutionary theory. I’ve written this before but it bears repeating. The adaptation of species to environmental pressures would seem like obvious evidence for evolution. But in recent years we have begun to understand the enormous complexity of adaptation. It is not a story of natural selection acting on undirected biological variations (that is, variations that are blind to environmental pressures). This sort of undirected process has been the evolutionary dogma for the past century. In what was known as the Modern Synthesis, biological adaptation was described as resulting from blind variations resulting, for instance, from genetic rearrangements or unguided mutations. No thanks to evolution we are now beginning to understand the real version of biological adaptation. What we are seeing is an incredibly complex adaptation machine that tweaks the designs of organisms in response to environmental pressures.
It is not a simple story as there are a variety of different ways such adaptations can occur. These mechanisms, broadly labeled as epigenetic inheritance, can regulate the expression of genes as well as redesign the genes. The bottom line is that the adaptations are not unguided, they benefit the organism, and they are extremely complex. The evolutionary story is completely wrong. As one evolutionist
admitted, the Modern Synthesis:
states that variations are blind, are genetic (nucleic acid-based), and that saltational events do not significantly contribute to evolutionary change. The epigenetic perspective challenges all these assumptions, and it seems that a new extended theory, informed by developmental studies and epigenetic inheritance, and incorporating Darwinian, Lamarckian, and saltational frameworks, is going to replace the Modern Synthesis version of evolution.
A new extended theory? This should be interesting, for it would have to explain how evolution creates mechanisms which, themselves, cause evolution (in the form of adaptation). I sense a just-so story coming on. In fact, evolutionists are already explaining this without losing a step. For instance (from the same paper):
Epigenetic inheritance should be favored in fluctuating environmental conditions that last for more than one generation (but not for very long) and may be particularly important in the type of environments experienced by many microorganisms. In such fluctuating environments, efficient epigenetic inheritance is likely to evolve (i) if the parental environment carries reliable information about the offspring’s environment, (ii) when the response to induction is lengthy and incurs a very high cost, and (iii) when recall is not an option or incurs too high a cost.
See, that was easy. Evolution just happens. So long as there is an advantage to a new design, then it will appear. That's how evolution works.
One of the best known epigenetic mechanisms is DNA methylation in which a methyl group is added to cytosine, one of the four DNA chemical letters. The methyl group is a sort of marker that can help to regulate the expression of genes. DNA methylation is accomplished via the action of a complicated molecular machine (DNA methyltransferase) that adds the methyl group at precisely the right location in the DNA strand.
So evolution configured DNA methyltransferase and the associated molecular information that tells it where to add the methyl group, so that later the organism and its offspring could benefit when certain environmental pressures arose. That's good planning--evolution is almost as smart as evolutionists are.
And to further complicate matters, this molecular marker can, itself, be modified. That is,
the mark can be marked, thus adding another layer of information to the epigenetic mechanism. In this case, the methyl group is hydroxylated. And of course a different complicated molecular machine is required for the task, and the information of when and where to go to work is needed.
Evolution must have created all these processes and molecular machines so evolution could occur. But that’s not all. Recently researchers found differing methylation patterns amongst mice from the same litter, reared in the same environment. As was
reported:
[Researchers] found regions in the animal's genetic makeup with strikingly different patterns. Moreover, these regions occurred among genes responsible for determining anatomy during early development.
In other words,
variably methylated regions of DNA have been discovered, and such variability could lead to increased trait variability. Evolutionists
speculate that this could help the population survive:
We're proposing that certain gene variants contribute to heterogeneity in populations. In a fluctuating environment, this gives generations more opportunity to survive.
And perhaps this new capability could help answer long-standing questions about how it is that evolution could work so well. As the article
explains:
For more than 100 years, mainstream science has embraced the basic tenets of Darwin's view that characteristics that increase an organism's ability to survive and reproduce will be passed from generation to generation. … Characteristics that affect an organism's ability to adapt and survive in times of environmental change have been thought to arise by chance through random mutations in an organism's DNA. However, this view could not explain how such mutations, which arise only rarely, help organisms of every size and variety adapt quickly enough through time.
We already knew evolution was plenty clever. It created genes, chromosomes and alleles, horizontal gene transfer, introns, DNA methylation, and its additional hydroxyl signal just to name a few structures and processes. Of course there is a dizzying array of molecular machines choreographing this drama at just the right moments. All this so more evolution could occur.
And now we add another miracle to the list: variably methylated regions of DNA so future generations could survive when some unforeseen environmental challenge arises. The levels of absurdity to which evolutionists will go is truly remarkable.
Here is an update from one of our friends in ministry who was on the ground when the earthquake hit Haiti. Answering the call of duty to help our fellow people is where we can make such a huge difference in the world and show our fruit. On the otherside, answering the question about how could God let this happen is another challenge. We need to be able to answer the call to duty and answer the hard questions. How would you respond?
Check out www.jesusu.org for a ton of cool stuff.
William Dembski, who was recently elected as the new Vice President of the EPS, released his latest book earlier this month from Broadman & Holman Academic, titled, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World (2009). We interviewed Dembski about his book and its implications for Christian work on the "problem of evil."
What’s the main point that you are trying to communicate in this book? What is the “end of Christianity” that you speak of in your title?
My book attempts to resolve how the Fall of Adam could be responsible for all evil in the world, both moral and natural IF the earth is old and thus IF a fossil record that bespeaks violence among organisms predates the temporal occurrence of the Fall. My resolution is to argue that just as the salvation of Christ purchased at the Cross acts forward as well as backward in time (the Old Testament saints were saved in virtue of the Cross), so too the effects of the Fall can go backward in time. Showing how this could happen requires extensive argument and is the main subject of the book. As for my title, “End of Christianity” involves a play on words – “end” can refer to cessation or demise; but it can also refer to goal or purpose. I mean the latter, as the subtitle makes clear: Finding a Good God in an Evil World.
How did this book come about for you? How does the “problem of evil” intersect with your other professional and personal interests?
My main work has been in the field of intelligent design. The problem of evil looms large there because if the world and life are designed, the question arises what sort of designer would allow all the malevolent designs that we find in nature. In referring such evil designs to the Fall, however, one runs into a problem if they predate the Fall, as is required with an old earth: How can future events influence past events? So this question is at the heart of the debate between young and old earth creationists.
What do you think often lacking or neglected in “problem of evil” discussions among philosophers and theologians? How does your book contribute to filling-in-the-gaps in the contemporary literature on this topic?
Philosophers tend to approach the problem of evil generically, asking whether God, conceived without specific references to Christian revelation, could be good despite the existence of evil. Such an approach falls under philosophy of religion. It’s fine as far as it goes, but it does not address specifically Christian concerns. My book falls more properly under philosophical theology – I analyze philosophically the content of Christian theology on the question of evil and of the Fall. Moreover, I make a positive proposal for how the Fall is possible in light of advances in modern science, which suggest that natural evil must have predated humanity by millions of years.
In five parts, you lay out your twenty-four chapters. Can you briefly describe the flow of this book and help us understand the larger argument in light of the parts of your discussion?
Part I describes the essence of human evil, the Fall, and God’s solution to our predicament, namely, the Cross. Part II addresses how natural evil can be a consequence of the Fall. The chapters here contrast a young earth view, in which natural evil comes after humanity’s Fall, with an old earth view, in which natural evil comes before. Part III lays out a theological metaphysics that provides the theoretical underpinnings for the retroactive view of the Fall that is the heart of my book. Part IV lays out this retroactive view of the Fall in detail, showing how the Fall can come after the natural evils for which it is responsible. Part V ties together loose ends, notably what to make of evolution as well as the existential problem of evil (it’s one thing to discuss evil intellectually, it’s another thing to deal with it in experience).
In the introduction, you help the reader to pay attention to the reality that we live and think in a particular “mental environment.” What is that mental environment? Why does it matter for doing theodicy work?
Mental environments are more powerful than what typically are understood as worldviews. A worldview can be thought of as a collection of propositions to which we assent. But a mental environment adds conviction to a worldview. How strongly do we hold to certain principles and values in our worldview, and how does that make a practical difference in our lives? A mental environment controls, among other things, our plausibility structures – what we find reasonable or unreasonable. In the current mental environment, given that it holds to an old earth, it becomes very hard for people to accept that the Fall affected the physical world (and, in particular, induced natural evil). My theodicy attempts to redress this obstacle posed to the Fall by the current mental environment.
As you say in the introduction, “Christian theodicy” often does deal with the fact of (1) God’s wise creation of the world out of nothing and (2) God’s particular providence in the world. But what is often missing and yet considered preposterous for some is the claim (3): All evil in the world ultimately traces back to human sin. Why is that preposterous for some given our mental environment?
If the earth has been around for millions of years and if animals have been killing each other, getting sick, and going extinct all that time, how can all that suffering be a consequence of humanity’s Fall when humans have been around only a minuscule portion of that time? Without a retroactive view of the Fall, in which God by anticipation allows natural evil in consequence of the Fall, the Fall and its physical effects seem crazy.
Would you say that if there is a failure to account for or be acquainted with the knowledge that is involved in claim (3), then a Christian theodicy that results from claims (1) and (2) will be inadequate?
A denial of (3) does not entail a denial of (1) or (2). Still, as a practical matter, without a classical view of the Fall as given in (3), theologians and scholars seem to find (1) and (2) less plausible. The problem is that (1) and (2) suggest that God is very close to the creation, getting his hands dirty in it and therefore responsible for much that happens. Without passing the blame for evil to humanity, as in (3), that blame then naturally falls on God – unless, that is, God’s role in the world can be diminished, which is precisely what the denial of (1) and (2) involve and which is why process and open theism are now the rage.
The importance of claim (3) would seem to speak to the importance of divine revelation about the human condition and a theology of the heart that takes seriously that revelation as knowledge about reality. Would you agree? If so, how might greater Christian philosophy and theology work on the “problem of evil” result from taking seriously claim (3) in light of claims (1) and (2)?
My book arose out of an essay titled “Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science.” I take seriously that the Scripture is God’s special revelation to humanity and that, as such, it is likely to contain layers of meaning that only become clear as our knowledge of the world increases. Far from scholarship undercutting the Scriptures, I see it as opening new vistas within the Scriptures. Thus I certainly see revelation as giving us knowledge about reality, knowledge that will agree with other sources of knowledge, such as science. As for the relation between claims (3) and claims (1) and (2), I see it as mutually reinforcing, where claim (3) renders the other two as more plausible and vice versa.
You are also working on a future project related to the topic, “being as communion,” which is also the title of chapter 13. Can you tell us about that project, including how is that project related to The End of Christianity? How is chapter 13 a microcosm of that larger project?
Actually, Part III, and not just chapter 13, which is within that part, is a microcosm of that larger project. “Being as Communion” attempts to provide a metaphysics of information that is conducive to Christian theism. It depends, however, on a prior science of information, which has been the subject of my research now for over a decade. My most current work here may be found on the Evolutionary Informatics Lab website (http://www.evoinfo.org/). There are still a few more mathematical results I need to publish before I’m ready finally to write a full-length treatment of the metaphysics of information.
What is your view about the reality of the Kingdom of God’s power and presence in our midst? How does that view figure into your treatment of suffering?
Evil, as I treat it, is never purposeless. Rather, God uses evil to bring us to our senses by making us face the consequences of our rebellion against God. The ultimate expression of evil and of God’s redemption from it is signified in the Cross. The Kingdom of God’s power is thus seen in God reversing the effects of evil through the Cross. God’s goodness, our hope and thanksgiving, and the full extremity of suffering are found in the Cross. For this reason, the first chapter in my book is devoted to the Cross – it is titled “The Reach of the Cross” and argues that the Cross is indeed enough to redeem the whole of a fallen world.
William Dembski is a Research Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. More about his work can be found at DesignInference.com and at his highly-trafficked group blog, UncommonDescent.com.
More Posts
Next page »