Being recently and well reproved, I am sorry to have wasted so much time on unprofitable things as this arguing science, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called (1 Tim 6.20):” Let us strive for better things. “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things (Philippians 4.8).”
Archive for the 'Philosophy' Category
I recently initiated a conversation with a scientist by email. He stated on his site that he believes in an old earth and evolution and is an orthodox Christian. I offered that there is a much easier way to resolve the issue of a seeming old earth in light of the Genesis account of creation. To be clear, I disagree with the notion that it is somehow necessary for salvation to apprehend every doctrine of Scripture to be saved, but I think that it is incumbent upon us to believe those things that are plainly taught as they are presented, and it is imperative to understand the gospel aright.
First, I wrote him explaining that I did not believe in an old earth. I offered an explanation that I think is both reasonable and logical given the tenor and context of the passage. That said, here is a modified portion of that conversation:
Adam and Eve were adults when God created them. He was able to name all the animals and they worked in the garden, understood and reasoned both with God and the serpent, etc. There is no scientific evidence for a young earth. The scientific evidence is for an old earth. but the reason from scripture is that God created the earth not in infancy, but in maturity. [Furthermore, it seems illogical that the earth could have performed all those things necessary to sustain human and other life if it had not been created in adulthood.] You cannot prove it. If you could, it would not be of faith, and we would receive less blessings by it. Consider, Jesus told Thomas (John 20.29), blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Likewise, the preamble to the “hall of faith” in Hebrews 11:
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
I don’t believe in some fundamentalist notion of checking your brain at the door. But I do believe that it is apprehended by faith, not “so-called science (1Tim 6.20).”
I believe that all things were created, in that respect, in an adult form. All the ‘suns’ and stars and satellites and planets. All the animals, all the plants, they were all mature and able to reproduce and do those things for which they were intended at the point they were created.
In his response, he said that he thought that for God to create the earth and universe in maturity was deceptive. To which I responded:
I think that the idea that it is deceptive is strange, considering that if a person did take [Genesis 1] at face value (since [his view seems to be that] it would be acceptable for a Christian to take either [a literal or symbolic/hyperbolic] view), they would logically assume that Adam was mature at creation, and so was Eve. [Likewise,] the plants produced fruit, etc., [which proved] their maturity (in the third day: he created plants and herbs which made seeds after their kind—Gen 1.11-13). Rather, within a literal understanding—which is the most plain and likely historical understanding—it seems only logical that all things were created in their maturity.
…It is not necessarily a requisite that a man believe the creation account for salvation, and further it is not saving in itself to believe it. Consider that the thief on the cross may not have understood much about the earth’s origins, and the Pharisees held much orthodoxy, but not in a saving way. However, that passage does not seem to be hyperbolic, consider the use of the words evening and morning and day, they do not seem to be indicative of ages, etc. I know that passages in the Scripture are figurative: the wings of God (metaphor), the anger of God (anthropomorphism), all Judea came to see Christ (hyperbole), etc. That passage does not, however, seem to use those or other similar literary devices [specific to day-ages, etc.].
It seems also likely that without our current scientific understanding it would have been impossible for saints of old—like Abraham and David and Mary—to have held a consistent orthodox view of our earth’s creation that was internally, scientifically consistent. So, which is stranger? That God would create the earth in maturity, or that it would take 5800 years for a Christian to comprehend the nature and extent of God’s creative work?
God was pleased as it says in the scriptures to confound the wisdom of the wise. Consider:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (1 Co 10.27)
Jesus thanked God for hiding things from the wise:
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. (Luke 10.21)
Would it be unlawful for God to keep people from understanding these things?
I will try to develop this more later. While I would not hold that you must believe the way I do about the issue of the mature earth, I would say that you should always believe God rather than man, and man’s so-called science, when they conflict, because they will.
I am trying to cement a voting strategy. I think I have a candidate: Ron Paul. I have long thought that I should not vote for a candidate that (as I said in an email the other night) I would not let my daughter marry. Look! my daughter is six, and he is only about 70 years her senior, love is blind! But, seriously, I am not convinced that if they were more appropriately matched I would be willing to see my daughter marry him.
Based on his YouTube Videos that he ostensibly endorsed, I think his libertarianism outweighs his Trinitarianism:
- I found a button on one of them that shows him and around his head is the phrase “Oh my God I’m Winning”—Taking the Lord’s Name in vain.
- His record-breaking fund-raising effort was initiated on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party:
- That was a Sunday—breaking the sabbath.
- The Tea Party was seditious act that led to a terrible revolt—the Bible likens rebellion to witchcraft.
Ron Paul is an appealing candidate in the most plain terms. But he is primarily a constitutionalist and a libertarian. He seems more moral than I presume a Southern Baptist pastor would be. But he has already shown substantial shortcomings in his recent activities for the reformed believer. I am a willing recipient of libertarianism, not a proponent. I am opposed to it practically, because it is generally held that those things that are left to an individual’s conscience or more appropriately state’s rights are things that are morally incumbent upon us to prohibit: abortion, sabbath breaking, adultery, etc. But I like that it leaves me free to practice what I believe without fear of reprisal.
I have not thought all of this out. From here, I am tempted to vote for him, to be sure. But I cannot endorse him whole-heartedly, and that is something I think I ought to be able to do before I vote for someone. While talking with my wife on the way home from church this evening, she asked me: would you vote for a Presbyterian (RPCNA) for president? I answered that I did not know. There are two real questions I am left with:
- Is it a Christian’s duty to vote?
- If so, based on what?
- What are the criteria a candidate must meet in order to be worthy of a Christian’s vote?
If you have the answers to these questions, I would definitely like to hear them. Please email me (david.eldridge@darkroastwebs.com).
Why We Think What We Think
I am, like you, a presuppositionalist. (I am sure that sounds presumptuous, and some of you may disagree.) There are certain things in life that cannot be proved. In this case, I am a Biblical presuppositionalist: I believe that the Bible is true as a primary tenet of my understanding of things. We all take things for granted, like those who drafted the Declaration of Independence, who said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” speaking of natural right. When considering the root of our thoughts, it is worthwhile to note that we all believe things that cannot be proven. When Moses wrote the book of Genesis, he said that God created the world.
How, pray tell, would he prove that? Rene Decartes said, “Cogito Ergo Sum,” or I think therefore I am. How do you imagine Mr. Descartes might demonstrate that his thinking proves his being? I do not deny our existence, I deny our ability to prove it. (Otherwise, why am I writing this?) I am no solipsist; a solipsist would say that he can prove his own existence, I will not even assert that, how can you?
Realizing that it is nearly impossible to prove a thing, there are some things that we take for granted, i.e. that we are alive, that we require nourishment to live. (I have no interest in disproving that.)
Some Examples of the Best Cyclical Thinking
There are two good examples of cyclical thinking that are worth noting, right after the best and broadest example, Christian Faith: Calvin’s admonition that to know God you must know yourself, and to know yourself, you must know God; and that in most reformation confessions, the first article addresses the Word of God and its being given by God. I think if I had been writing a confession today, I would have started on the subject of creation. But I think it would not have been as good a way to start, though it makes all the sense in the world to me. It may be that those men who fashioned the London Baptist and Westminster Confessions, had in mind that early sin in the Garden, namely, Satan’s undermining derision, “Yea, hath God said?”
That said, I will go on in my frail consideration, with the knowledge that there are two scriptural reasons to why it may be sometimes appropriate to start with creation, namely, Gen 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
and Romans 1 shows that natural revelation is sufficient unto condemnation. So, while knowing about creation will not save a man, scoffing at God in light of it will damn a man. So, Genesis 1 shows us that God begins with the foregone conclusion that God began not with the argument that the Scriptures are His word, but that He created. Secondly, Romans shows us that creation knowledge is quite perilous, and powerful, though not life-giving.
In the beginning God…
God exists. He is the immaterial first Cause. There is nothing made but by his hand. While Scriptures are not needed to see this, it is by Scripture that I know that they are not needed to see this (Rom 1.19-21):
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
However, all the only thing raw reason does is show us his existence, not his essence. I am frail, and my thinking feeble, as I have to reflect in my constant struggle with unbelief, I can rightly pray with that father in Mark 9.24, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
What is there that was not made? Kelvin’s law of Energy Conservation says, Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed, it can only change forms, from matter to energy, and then energy cannot be destroyed. So we know that matter cannot create itself. However, truly, to think that anything could create itself is fundamentally absurd. It does not take a scientist to figure that out. But that is my point. To think that the universe could create itself is fundamentally absurd. If you really think otherwise, write me. I will not be able to straighten you out, though. Your problems are deep.
I am going to end here for now. I have too much to tackle here. This is an ongoing thing. I will next address the absurdity of evolution, if the Lord allows.
I am sorry for those who have lost loved ones in the tragedy in Virginia. I am blessed to have no relations (that I know of) that have been involved in that tragedy at Virginia Tech this week.
In the wake of those harrowing events at the VT campus this week, there is concern over campus security, and ensuring the safety of students. There are three basic problems with that:
- Its focus is too narrow.
- It is quite likely unconstitutional.
- It is cost-ineffective (for now).
I think it is shortsighted to say that we need to take better care to secure students throughout the land. We are often only concerned with our own personal circumstances and callings. Consider, there is nothing that kept that from happening to people in the World Trade Center, a Colorado High School, an Oklahoma Federal Building or an Oklahoma Post Office. All people need to be protected: subway and airplane passengers, soldiers (from fellow soldiers), children from parents, and vice versa. What state can prevent all of that? I know of none. However, if we are interested in safety, we must consider all venues, not only the one from which we are reeling.
The second problem is that the protection that would be required by some would be entirely unconstitutional, consider the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Circumstances like these are generally improbable, so how would you protect yourself against them? If we undermine the constitution, we live in an arbitrary state, at the mercy of our newfound dictator. If we continue down this course we live a life like all have lived in times past, one that has uncertainty and fear. This is not new. The state cannot protect us from that in the end.
I believe there could easily come a point where we would have such a state where it would be possible for the government to so easily monitor our behavior through the use of video surveillance and RFID that we could be secure in a way that would assuage the fears of most Americans. But we would not be able to do the most sensitive things without our Big Brother knowing what is going on. There would no longer be wire taps, there would be an open phone system, that is constantly being passed through a governmental audio algorithm. All corners monitored by cameras, all corridors and all public school restrooms. However, one thing is forgotten here: monitoring is not protecting. In the end the state can only survey and hope to get there to limit the fallout. Security is freedom from danger, etc. When I lived at home, my dad used to say, “Son, I cannot make you do anything, I can only make you wish you had.” Likewise, the government cannot secure us they can only limit us and manage the aftermath. And every time more security measures are put in place, people overcome them, consider notorious hackers, they live to breach obstacles. Those men in the planes on 11 September 2001, Timothy McVey, Eric Klebold and Dylan Harris were all murderous engineers, devising the best way to maximize bloodshed.
Consider the following:
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3.6) Cf. similar passages.
Maybe we should be considering the source of safety and tragedy is the same, and repent before him, rather than railing against our god, the state.
We have gone to Iraq to install democracy, which is still a fledgling, and practically (if not philosophically) flawed political idea. We have cited Sadam’s killing thousands of many of his own countrymen as a cause for our desire to help them. However, we are killing more in a couple of days than he may have killed in the life of his entire regime. In 2003 it was estimated that we have killed 45 million here in America with abortion/infanticide, at an even rate, that equates to 1.5 million/year (more than 2,500/day). If you took a scalpel and excised Calif. along its border, and let it drift into the sea, so that everyone drowned, that is the approximate number of children who have been killed in America since the Roe v. Wade Decision in 1973.
How did we get here? Our decision to go to war with Iraq was purportedly to find WMD in March/April 2003 (with a minor free-the-Iraquis mission while we were there). However, the initial 5 percent mission has become the 95 percent mission, and we have tried to forget about the other part all along the way.
I recently watched Why We Fight a BBC documentary on the Iraq War on Google Video [1|2|3|4]. It was an interesting exposé
on the war. I don’t know that it was a very honest telling of the war story, but that is easy to say, since I would be reluctant to count the other side as more trustworthy.
I was a soldier for 11 years and 8 months before recently leaving the service (2007.02.28). I left as a sergeant (E-5) with my first 8 years and 5 months AD, and my last 3 years and 3 months in the National Guard. While I am not of the mind that my service makes my opinion any more or less valid than someone who has never served, I think it will help to show why I have formed opinions on some things.
I am happy that I am out, though I am not arguing against the legitimacy of service or the government in the use of force in lawful circumstances. I believe that it is legitimate to serve, and as noble as the calling of a physician or a janitor. (And I would hate to do either job, or even work on my car, as I am sure many would hate to code web pages.)
One of the most frightful things about this war has very little to do with whether or not it was legitimately waged: it is, rather, that the president was allowed to wage it so single-handedly. We have in America arguably one of the most able electorate/legislative bodies in the world. In light of the evidence that was brought to them, they were quite happy (a few votes shy of a 75% super-majority) to allow the president to execute this war without their interference/input. I think it is additionally noteworthy that the vast majority of the world thought that Sadam Hussein was quite guilty of infractions against UN resolutions and more. I am not arguing that the president did or did not lie, that is hard to know for sure one way or the other with our limited evidence. I am saying that if our intelligence was poor, it was not unlike the rest of the world’s in terms of apparent quality.
Aside: I have seen back-peddling on both sides of this very partisan issue. Republicans have feigned holding the moral highground for a long time. However, when they use argumentation like well others lied, too, it does not hold a lot of water.
My point here is not to vindicate the president, my point is to point out the flawed perspective in this mess: We trust the media, proven liars, to tell us that the president is a liar. We hear the legislature chiding him, frequently, but they largley voted for him to do it. Though the percentages on both sides of the party chasm are quite notably skewed, even with that nearly super majority. I think the GOP voted nearly unanimously for him, while the Democrats voted against his control with a very simple majority.
I have not given much thought to this war in the past, for fear that I would find that we should not be there, and I might have unnecessary scruples about any part I might have had in it. I also did not want to express dissent against my Commander-in-Chief. Now I am out, and while I can now do so more freely, I do not see compelling evidence for a trustworthy source that our president acted illegitimately. That does not mean I don’t suspect anything is wrong. That means that I don’t believe the media, and am not willing to condemn him for something I cannot prove.
PETA is an organization whose purported purpose it is to encourage kindness toward animals. The name is hard to argue against. Why would anyone be for the unethical treatment of animals? It seems silly to want to treat animals unethically. However, the desire of the folks at PETA is not borne by a simple affinity toward the animal kingdom, rather it is carried by a hatred for fellow humans and an inordinate view of animals.
The people at PETA think that there is no order but that which is ‘natural’. Ingrid Newkirk says we are all animals. Newkirk and her allies at PETA don’t understand the problem of their thinking. While we all exhibit animal-like qualities, we are not all animals. A calculator is not a word processor, just because they both have circuit boards. Her thinking is averse to God and His order. While it is a ‘natural’ order, it was divinely created and driven. As Romans 1 says, it bears witness against us, and many are punished for their abuse of that knowledge.
Her ideas are bound up in ideas that animals are cute, little, cuddly, fuzzy bundles of fur, not deserving of the wholesale slaughter that we meet out upon them with regularity in slaughterhouses across our cruel country. Consider if people are all animals as she says, there are no ethics. Whatever animals (which humans would be in this worldview) do is right, because they cannot help but abide by their impulses. That is essentially animalian. If a lion eats a poor, defenseless gazelle, no one would argue. If we are about the ethical treatment of animals, we should be lobbying against carnivorous animals, and bringing them into subjection to our laws and ethical construct. If, however, they can eat meat, why should other ‘animals’ be kept from it?
If her worldview were properly applied, either we are allowed to eat meat, because we are animals, and whatever we do is right (ethical), or we are not animals, and we admit that our position is distinct from animals, again allowing for the ‘ethical’ eating of meat.
It is noteworthy that there are not many opponents of the unethical treatment of plants. Does no one care about all of that defenseless corn in Western Kansas? What did an apple ever do to any of us? There are at least two possible reasons for this: even Newkirk realizes the absurdity of her foolishness taken to its logical end, and/or all those internally consistent atheists, who are so subversive and ardently opposed to admitting our God-ordered existence (whereby we may lawfully eat most anything) died while taking a stand against plant violence, since there is not much left to eat in that paradigm.
So then, eat meat, without scruples. Whatsoever you do, whether you eat meat or not, give thanks to God for it.
At the founding of our nation (1776, not 1620) there are some very important ideas that are relatively new to the world. Not minor among them is the idea of Natural Right. The old idea of Divine Right is the means by which a king would generally say that they were appointed to office by a vision from God, etc. Whereas Natural Right presumes certain rights are bestowed upon us all. Consider our Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
What is, then, the difference between Divine Right and Natural Right? Divine Right states that the King is reposed with rights and responsibilities by God, and Natural Right says that all are. The biggest single difference is that Divine Right is a special revelation, where Natural is not. But both are held to proceed from God. And in both cases, God is invoked as our common Creator as a means of bolstering their claims (however silly).
The point of the revolution is not a valiant interest in the freedom of all, for not all were freed by it. Rather, white, male, land-owning men were intended to have this freedom. So that they believed that all men are created equal did not intend women, poor, and slaves. This is not some amazing new concept in freedom, rather, a subversive power grab, and a recasting of the aristocracy. What now is the difference between the old king with his dukes, and lords, and the new president with his judges and senators? Admittedly there is a difference. There is now a balance of powers. This is a notable difference, indeed. But this in no way justifies the undermining of the authority of the King of England. It may be that all our founders really intended was to steal the power from the King, and when they did, they could not agree who would be king, so they worked out a deal, senators, representatives, judges, and presidents, whereby no one is king, but all share some of the weakened power.
The only reason why we count these men heroes is that they won. Had they lost the revolutionary war, they would be counted traitors, and George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson would have the same poor ring as Benedict Arnold or Judas Iscariot.
Aside: to be clear, I believe that we are all created in God’s image, and in that we are responsible to treat each other with dignity, and are owed respect, as humans. Though that is not to say that we are all equal and deserving of the same respect. I would not expect a king to bow to a subject, a captain to first render his salute to a sergeant, etc. I also believe that all authority on heaven and on earth is ordained by God, so while I don’t believe that English Kings received any visions from God telling them that it was their office to be king and defensor fidei, I do believe that they are ordained by God to fill that position, as is evidenced by their filling of it.
Recent Comments