Do they want to know whether I have any “moral, ethical or religious beliefs?” Who DOESN’T? (Or who doesn’t at least hold some kind of “right and wrong” doctrine.)

Do they want to know whether these beliefs could hinder us from keeping a fair mind? How can they not?? Certainly they at least effect our opinion of what “fair” is.

WHAT IS FAIR??

That was the begging question in my head. I was stuck. I wanted to know by whose definition of fair I should answer the question. I can’t believe that we all could have the same standards of justice. It seemed like an impossible question to answer. Maybe I was obsessing over the word too much, but I was not going to pretend to know what “fair” is.

Of course I have religious, moral, and ethical views—-so does everybody to some degree. Of course my views effect my idea of what is fair—-that’s true for everybody too. How can anyone check no? Yet there is a “no” check box. The question assumes that the answer could for some be negative. Was I misunderstanding the question? Afraid I may be thinking about it way too much, I checked yes and moved on.

For the next couple days I waited in the hallway outside the juror’s lounge, trying to read but unable to concentrate. (I scarcely have the time to read at home and here I had two full days to waste and couldn’t turn a page. How aggravating!) Two seats to my left sat a woman who seemed to have a strong personality.  She liked to talk. Her voice could be heard the entire corridor. She talked to no one in particular, just anybody who’d give her their attention. She started out boasting how she tries to do one good deed everyday.

“But not to my kids” she quickly specified. “I don’t do good deeds for my kids. They don’t deserve it.”

(Is it a “good deed” if it is deserved?) I kept my mouth shut and let the woman proceed with her ramblings.

“My kids are annoying.” she went on. “My daughter doesn’t think I can hear her. She’s always yelling—-right in my ear too! My son is mean. He’s always shoving his sister and pushing her down. My boy is seven and my girl is four. He’s always pushing her down. So I push him down! Fair is Fair, Right?” She exclaimed, inviting our laughter. “He’s bigger than his sister and he pushes her down. I’m bigger than him, I push him down. Fair is Fair!” She thought herself so clever.

Some of the jurors chuckled or at least smiled at her logic. Was I the only one listening? Do they really think this woman’s logic is funny—-or were they simply amusing her? I was the ‘Angela Martin‘ in the room—-while everyone else smiled, I kept a somber face with a conscious effort to not show any scorn.

I understand my ‘sweet, adorable’ little girl will not always be ‘sweet and adorable’.  Someday she will be seven—-though I won’t need to wait that long before she begins to pull stunts to test my boundaries and push my buttons. And my reactions to my daughter’s behavior will not always be just or effective or good.

But this woman’s rationale disgusted me. I don’t know…if I were a seven-year-old and I shoved my little brother or sister, and my mom responded to my behavior by echoing it…I think I would learn that shoving is okay–after all, mom does it!. And I probably wouldn’t learn any other way of resolving conflict. I’d grow up to be an immature brat who gets what I want by shoving others around. There are enough “grown up” immature brats already. I wanted this woman to consider what she was modeling for her son but I dared not open my mouth. I’m a very new first-time mom who knows better than to share her inexperienced opinion.

The woman’s statements confirmed for me that human ideas of  ‘fairness’ are indeed flawed. Fair is fair, right?

Who knows what fair is—-already I met another juror who differs from me on the subject. Remembering the stumbling question on the questionnaire, I knew I’d checked the right box. The answer can only be yes. My guess, however, is that the woman checked “no” to the same question. Impossible.

There is only One who judges perfectly. There is only One who is truly just.

I don’t believe I over-analyzed the question. Maybe the people who wrote the question should give it more thought.

My husband and I  have recently become  new parents with the birth of our daughter. I love being a mom, even with its challenges. It is amazing the tremendous joy and fulfillment our little girl brings. As a new mom, I have less time for reading and blogging…and whatever time I do have for reading, I page through mothering books. Not sure how often I will write here or even what form my posts will begin to take in this new chapter of my life. But I do not plan to disappear from the blogosphere completely.

(I also had to return Dawkins to the library, so I don’t know when I’ll ever pick up on him again.)

Lack of Imagination?? (Wouldn’t an atheist, from their naturalist perspective, normally accuse a creationist—who believes in ‘crazy’ Bible stories and miracles—of having TOO MUCH imagination?) This is very interesting.

Dawkins introduces the anthropic principle to address the large gap between the origin of life and the process of natural selection. When we apply this principle to explain the origin of life, we observe and appreciate all the many precise details that need to come into play in order for life to happen. Dawkins describes a number of these particulars…our distance and orbit around the sun, the gravitational force of Jupiter to grab threatening asteroids that would otherwise destroy us, etc (135-136). To the question “Why do I exist on Earth?” the anthropic principle notes that the very asking of the question requires that we first of all exist, and the fact of our existence on Earth shows that Earth is friendly to our kind of life. The answer: “We exist on Earth because Earth allows for our existence.”

Dawkins presents the anthropic principle as magical statistics.

It has been estimated that there are between 1 billion and 30 billion planets in our galaxy, and about 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Knocking off a few naughts for reasons of ordinary prudence, a billion billion is a conservative estimate of the number of available planets in the universe. Now suppose the origin of life…really was quite a staggering improbable event. Suppose it was so improbable as to occur on only one in a billion planets….even with such absurdly long odds, life would still have arisen on a billion planets—of which Earth, of course, is one (138-139).

Between 1 and 30 billion planets? I find it truly amazing that anyone can even begin to count them. And to count GALAXIES even! Napoleon, like there’s anyway you can even do that. Pull a number out of hat, then “knock off a few naughts”…and what do we have? A made up number that means NOTHING!

After we find our magic number we can start supposing things. Let’s suppose really ridiculous odds for the origin of life, (but not odds so ridiculous that it would be unreasonable).  Let’s keep the statistics generous enough to support evolution or else our theory will fail. Where are they coming up with these fantastical variables?

Abra Kadabra and BANG! (cue poof of smoke) we exist! Is this really science?? Or is it fantasy? I can see now why Dawkins would accuse the creationist of lacking an imagination.

It gets even more confusing. After first refusing to acknowledge chance for the reason we are here, the theory of evolution necessitates pure LUCK to initiate life. Are we going in circles here?

We can deal with the unique origin of life by postulating a very large number planetary opportunities. Once that initial stroke of luck has been granted—and the anthropic principle most decisively grants it to us—natural selection takes over: and natural selection is emphatically not a matter of luck (Dawkins, 140).

Why do we exist? No reason…it just happened, that’s all. Lucky for us.

I am having a terrible time taking this seriously…maybe I lack imagination. Either I seriously misunderstand this theory or it really is a fantasy.

]]> http://rostock.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/the-anthropic-fantasy-part-1/feed/ 13 rostock http://rostock.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/eternal-evolution/ http://rostock.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/eternal-evolution/#comments Mon, 18 May 2009 03:50:41 +0000 rostock http://rostock.wordpress.com/?p=530 ]]> Irreducible complexity is the notion that a mechanism is so complicated and complete, that if any part of its whole were missing, it would not be able to function (The God Delusion, 122). Two common examples for this argument are the eye and the wing. Many creationists would claim that a partial eye or a fraction of a wing would be useless (123-124).

Dawkins disagrees with these two examples, bringing to attention the flatworm, whose eye is apparently less evolved than the human eye and can only detect shadows and light (124). While giving no real examples of creatures with partial wings, Dawkins rationalizes that a fraction of a wing—though not as good as a whole wing—is still functional.  There is always a height from which a winglet can save you from a fall (123). (I find this logic somewhat silly.)

I am not going to pretend to know the anatomy and complexity of these or other organs. I couldn’t tell you one way or another whether an organ is irreducibly complex.

Dawkins admits that irreducible complexity would destroy Darwin’s theory of evolution:

The creationists are right that, if genuinely irreducible complexity could be properly demonstrated, it would wreck Darwin’s theory. Darwin himself said as much: ‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.’ (Dawkins, 125)

For some reason Dawkins believes irreducible complexity would be likewise as lethal to the intelligent design theory (125). I can’t figure out why. I should think irreducible complexity is absolutely necessary!

Complexity must either be infinitely reducible, so that we never reach a beginning in which case natural selection becomes an on-going (everlasting?) series of effects, with no definite initial cause. (And this would seriously contradict science in the law of causality.) OR there must ultimately be an actual eternal existence that has no beginning and has no end—whose complexity indeed is irreducible. Neither option is very accommodating to the theory of evolution.

Evolution only works within the construct of time. Dawkins already explained the cumulative process of natural selection. Over so many ‘billions’ or ‘trillions’ of years (far, far less than forever), we’ve supposedly evolved from the same primary life form. Wouldn’t that very first building block have to be irreducibly complex? If there is no end to the reducibility of complexity, then how do we dare frame the process of evolution within a supposed span of time?—(and so short a time at that.) The process of natural selection would go back forever. It would be eternal. This theory doesn’t make sense.

The origin of life must be BOTH eternal AND irreducibly complex if it is to initiate the whole process of natural selection. If neither of these attributes are present in the origin of life, then it remains nothing more than an effect. And we know that an effect cannot exist without a cause. There MUST be an ultimate cause.

We may not agree about who or what the ultimate cause actually is, but we certainly need to recognize the necessity of irreducible complexity and eternal existence.

I believe the ultimate cause is the eternal God, Creator of all things–including time. He is the source of life and is certainly irreducibly complex. Regardless of whether we acknowledge him as our Lord and Maker, we cannot exist without of him. Remove the cause and you remove the effect.

The creationist’s determination to hunt for irreducible complexity and other such “gaps” between stages of evolution seems to really annoy Dawkins. I guess this determination is not so different than the atheist’s obsession to spotlight holes in Scripture in order to find it unreliable. (Dawkins demonstrated this obsession himself in just the previous chapter.) This is NOT annoying. This is good! If there are holes in the ship wouldn’t we sure want to know about them? It is GOOD to critique and examine an argument, to be sure it is solid. Otherwise, you might find yourself on a sinking vessel.

chance

3. The possibility or probability of anything happening: a fifty percent of chance.
4. An opportunity or favorable time; opportunity: now is your chance

prob⋅a⋅bil⋅i⋅ty

1. the quality or fact of being probable
4. statistics

a. the relative possibility that an event will occur as, expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences.
b. the relative frequency with which an event occurs or is likely to occur.

im⋅prob⋅a⋅bil⋅i⋅ty

1. the quality or condition of being improbable, unlikelihood.
2. something improbable, unlikely

My High School class graduated with no deaths, barely. In our senior year, one classmate had suffered very serious injury in a devastating car wreck. He was given one percent of one percent chance of survival. You wonder how on earth he even lived. The theme of our yearbook that year was ‘I survived’ in honor of him. Somehow (miraculously?) he was even able to walk the stage to receive his diploma at graduation. You can imagine the applause.

If a doctor states that a patient, given his condition, stands a fifty percent chance of survival, is that not a statistical answer? While knowing the calculated odds, does it not ultimately rest on uncontrolled chance? And if the patient does survive, while much to his own advantage, would it not be commonly esteemed a strike of tremendous fortune, or luck? (or from the creationist’s perspective…tremendous providence.)

The statistical improbability of complex life emerging and thriving as we observe it on earth, is said to be too impossible to be given to chance. Considering no other alternative, the creationist insists that their must be a master mind behind everything, and that master mind is God. Dawkins insists on natural selection as an alternative to chance (121). Natural selection, according to Dawkins, is a series of relatively improbable events, which in accumulation add up to an immensely improbable phenomenon–one that is too impossible to be given to chance.

…natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so. When large numbers of these slightly improbable events are stacked up in a series, the end product of the accumulation is very very improbable indeed, improbable enough to be far beyond the reach of chance (Dawkins, 121).

The best I can understand this is to relate it to the lottery game where you have to match eight winning numbers. I don’t play the lottery, but they run these lucky numbers in the evening News….Eight glass chambers each with twenty-five ping-pong balls numbered between 1 and 100 bouncing around inside, awaiting their release. One by one, a lady would release one ball from each chamber. When I was little I used to guess the numbers before they came out. Twelve! (I had a 1% chance of guessing correctly on each one.) Seven! (One out of one hundred chance to get it right.) Sixty-three! (Every turn got more suspenseful) Fifty-one! (Four down four to go!) Eighty-four! (Oh boy!) Fifty-one! (Mom, come quick! So far, I guessed all the numbers correctly!) Nineteen! (One more!) Forty! (I did it! I did it! I guessed them all right!)

I DID infact guess them all right once. A freak chance. My guesses were completely random, as were the resulting winning numbers. A 1% chance of guessing the winning number correctly eight times stacks up to be a highly improbable outcome, but not too improbable. I was just downright lucky. (Of course this is a very small scale illustration when discussing the origin of life. But I am only trying to understand the concept of natural selection at this point.)

Does this accurately summarize the concept of natural selection? How is Natural Selection too far beyond the reach of (freak) chance?

Right now, this all feels like a game of numbers and words, perhaps even a house of cards. What am I missing?

Dawkins is asking a question that pertains to an entity he believes (almost) certainly does not exist. Indeed it will be difficult for him to hear any kind of answer. He (and any atheist) is going to have to yield to the notion that God does indeed exist. Not just any god–for there are thousands who require good virtues and works of righteousness in addition to belief. But only one God–the God of the Bible–requires FAITH alone. If Dawkins (or any atheist) wants an answer to this question, he will have to tolerate for once, the God of the Bible…

In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth and gave order to it. He created man and woman in his own image. He blessed them and charged them to be fruitful and multiply, and to rule over his creation. God provided them with seed-bearing plants and fruit-bearing trees to eat for food. God saw all that he had made and saw that it was very good (Genesis 1).

Adam and Eve had perfect communion with God in the Garden of Eden. God had only one restriction–do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or you will surely die (Genesis 2:16-17). It is not too much to ask. There were plenty of trees from which Adam and Eve could eat. Only one single tree in the whole garden was forbidden. God gave us freedom to choose to obey him, or to forsake him. He permitted us to act on our will. And so we did. You and I were not there in the Garden of Eden. But we all fell with Adam’s sin. Sin infected the entire human race. We ALL are guilty of sin. We all harbor ill thoughts, we all lie, we all cheat, we all offend, we all shrink in our pride. And therefore we all die, just as God warned would surely happen.

God is not obliged to reverse our decision. We made our choice. We are not entitled to reconciliation. We all deserve eternal damnation.Yet God is gracious. He cursed the serpent for instigating this evil, but in the middle of the curse, he promised redemption for man (Genesis 3:15). And so he established his covenant.

As sinners, we are born into death. The dead and the living cannot have fellowship together. The pure will not tolerate the perverse. And the perverse will not tolerate the pure. God is perfect and holy. We are imperfect and unholy. We can do NOTHING to save ourselves. NOTHING! No amount of good works will ever redeem us from the grave. We will always contend with sin. We made our decision–we CHOSE death.

The only one who CAN save us from death is the One who is perfect and holy, without blemish, without sin—Jesus Christ the Son of God. He took our sin upon himself and died our death so that we may live.

Romans 10:9 tells us that that if we confess with our lips, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in our heart that God raised him from the dead, we will be saved. It is easy to read this verse to mean that we are saved as a result of our believing in God. But this would contradict with the rest of Scripture and nullify the work of Christ. We are saved by GRACE, not by works. Galatians 2:21. Belief in God does NOT merit salvation. Faith is NOT an activating agent that somehow makes the cross effective in our lives. We are not saved because we believe in Jesus. We believe in Jesus, because we are saved. Belief is a result (not a cause) of salvation. We will have restored communion with God, not because of anything we have done, but because of what Christ alone has done.

Dawkins is therefore mistaken. God does NOT reward our belief. Salvation—from beginning to end—is entirely the work of God ALONE. We are DEAD in our sin. As long as we are in the grave, we will only ever choose death. But the Holy Spirit gives life. Romans 8:1-17. The Spirit is the one who reveals God’s truth and leads us to true faith and repentance. We can NEVER choose to believe in God without the intervention of his Spirit. True faith can only come from God, not from ourselves. Ephesians 2:8-9. If true faith originates from ourselves, than belief in God is a work of self-righteousness.

Salvation is by God’s grace ALONE, through faith ALONE, in Jesus Christ ALONE, for His glory ALONE.

(I just breezed through an immense amount of doctrine.)

Dawkins contests that man cannot seriously chose to believe something unless he is convinced of its trustworthiness. Belief is not a haphazard choice as much as it is a conviction. You can’t pretend to believe something.

In my own family there are members who do not acknowledge any god whatsoever, others who exalt mother nature, some who are apathetic in their faith, and then those who proclaim Christ. The scope might be even broader in your family. Across the globe we find more gods than we could ever fear. John Calvin makes the observation that from the beginning of time, there is not one nation, tribe or even family on the face of the earth that can completely depart from the notion of a divine being. So penetrating is the inkling of a deity in our minds (Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, 44).

Not even the atheist can completely escape the notion of a god. I like the title Dawkins gives to chapter four—Why There Almost Certainly Is No God (emphasis mine). The man who rallies the agnostics and closet-atheists in the world to come out be “loud and proud” ATHEISTS, is too afraid to lead his own parade. Is there hidden deep-down in his being, an awareness of some god, that–try as he might–he just cannot shake?

It would seem that the same notion is rooted deep in all of us…or why should cultures near and far, throughout history, be compelled to worship something (anything) at all? From where does this common notion of a deity come? Is it possible we have a Creator who knows each one of us? Is it possible we might bear his image? Is it possible that this inkling deep within us indeed testifies to a true God who made us?

Indeed, even idolatry is ample proof of this conception. We know how man does not willingly humble himself so as to place other creatures over himself. Since then he prefers to worship wood and stone rather than to be thought of as having no God, clearly this is a most vivid impression of a divine being (Calvin, 44).

The evidence for God is not lacking. Just like it is possible to identify an artist by his distinct creative style present in his work, so creation testifies to its Creator. Romans 1:18-20 tells us that God’s invisible qualities have been clearly revealed to us through what has been made, leaving us without excuse. There is no reason for our disbelief.

In his book, Jesus Among Other Gods, Ravi Zacharias states that a total rejection of God has less to do with lack of evidence than it does the suppression of it (50). Drawing from Scripture, Zacharias reminds us how the Pharisees always demanded a sign from Jesus, even after immediately witnessing a miracle. But Jesus understood their game. They did not seek a sign. They did not need any more evidence. They simply did not want to believe that Jesus was who he claimed to be. They didn’t care about evidence, they only cared about their own industry, even at the cost of truth. (50-57) So stubborn we can be.

At my church, I have the privilege to receive excellent teaching in the adult electives Sunday mornings. This quarter I am taking an elective on apologetics, taught by published author, Dr. Stephen J. Nichols. A few weeks ago, he related this “suppression of evidence” to a boy who tries to keep an inflatable ball under his feet in a swimming pool. He pushes it down and tries to keep it under, but despite all his efforts, the ball always pops up again. The truth always surfaces. The nagging notion of a God is always there, no matter how much we try to deny it. And the evidence for his existence cannot be ignored. If we are so determined to refuse the truth, we will become frustrated, even angry when it surfaces. It just isn’t what we want to believe. (This certainly explains why Dawkins seems so stubborn and angry when it comes to the subject of God.)

If creation plainly testifies to a Creator. If even we ourselves, though hostile to our Maker cannot shake the notion of his existence. If we desperately suppress the evidence in order to favor a lie, then do we in fact choose to believe (or not believe) in something even without sincere conviction–without legitimate reason? Is Dawkins wrong when he says that belief is more than mere choice?

I believe God gives us freedom to entertain our wills, at least within our sinful state. We can choose…but our human will will never choose TRUTH on its own. The Holy Spirit must be at work in our hearts. Mark 3:29 tells us that to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is the only one unforgivable sin. I believe this is because it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates us and leads us to Jesus Christ who is TRUTH.

We might fight it, we may pursue a substitute god, but we will never have rest until we finally acknowledge our Maker and call him Lord.

Sweet relief for those who dread wealth.

I see this billboard on my commute home from work everyday. You know the economy is in recession when an advertising slogan attempts to give you peace about the threat of poverty. I at least found it humorous. I feel so much better now, knowing that I can remain poor the rest of my days, or at least until this popular franchise discontinues their rich beverage.

This would never make sense in a booming economy.

I guess it is time to explain why I do not employ politically-correct gender-inclusive language… (first of all, I can’t call the baby “it”—I’m not carrying a wad of playdough, I’m carrying a human life.)

I grew up in the twentieth century, just like you (or most of you)—I learned full well what is supposed to be “proper” when addressing both sexes. And I am, after all, a woman; Shouldn’t I therefore be particularly offended when someone says man or mankind instead of humankind? or he instead of the cumbersome he or she or the grammatically awkward they? Heavens no!

I have several reasons for my stubbornness, but I want to try to keep this brief. Most significantly I think something valuable is lost with gender-inclusive language…

I must give credit to Dr. Wayne Grudem who greatly influenced my opinions on this subject in his book, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. Dr. Grudem reminds us that Adam was created first. God gave Adam a direct command to not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 2:17). This is before Eve even existed. (112)

God created Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. Adam gave his suited helper a title and called her “woman” because she came out of man (Gen 2:23). And He also named her (Gen 3:20). In calling her woman and naming her Eve, Adam exercised authority over her his wife. Eve did not name Adam, God did. And Adam, as the head of his wife, named Eve. This is all before the Fall, before sin perverted everything.

God appointed Adam as the head. Adam (not Eve) is our covenant representative. Both Adam and Eve sinned against God, but ALL of mankind fell with Adam’s sin.

I find it interesting, that the curse God gives to Eve is one that cannot be immediately directed on man (although to a limited extent men do, in patient support, persevere with their wives). But the curse given to Adam, is one which women also commonly suffer. This used to bother me. But it makes sense when you remember that Adam is the representative for all mankind. Eve cannot represent all of mankind, neither does her curse directly effect all of mankind. Both man and woman have responsibility in the Fall, but on account of Adam’s sin we ALL are cursed. We ALL are spiritually dead.

Grudem points to the parallels in Scripture which teach that we are likewise saved by one man, Jesus Christ, who was our representative on the cross. On account of Christ’s righteousness, we (men and women alike) are made blameless in the sight of the Lord.  The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 5:19, (112)

For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (esv)

In my mind, the use of gender-inclusive language really dilutes the significance of our representation in Adam and in Christ.

The male pronoun can and does properly cover both sexes whereas the female pronoun cannot. Society at large today may strongly disagree. I know I am a very small minority on this, even among Christians and especially among women. I probably just put my bare neck on the slaughtering block. That’s okay…I’m not really interested in pursuing popular ideals, I’m more interested in pursuing Truth.