When reviewing what I wrote here, I began to think some more about the implications of naturalism, and I think that what I originally said here should recieve some qualifications. When I refered to the actual theory of naturalism, in which I believe epistomological accuracy is likely, I was really refering to the evolutionary model, not naturalism per se. I was arguing from what I believe naturalists might really say. The question that came to mind, however, is whether a naturalist would really have the right to say this, or if evolutionary theory is, ironically, incompatible with a completely naturalistic worldview. Can the plant I used in my example really grow towards the light if there is nothing existing beyond the material?
It is here that we are forced to decide on how naturalism is to be defined. If it really means that only matter exists, then there can be no governing principle or law that says that order or life or continuity are good. They simply are. Existence, such as we experience it, is an absurd mistake, for which we can perceive no rational explenation. In this sense, nothing is compatible with a completely naturalistic worldview, least of all meaningfull human language.
Naturalism thus defined, however, is not the real issue. If a naturalist would aspire to transcend the nihilism that is the inevitable implication of his system of thought, he will admit that evolution is not a random principle. If he is wise, he will see that it is not possible to replace God with a vacuum; such an emptiness will prove to be a proverbial black hole into which all else will colapse. No, he will find something that fills the role of God, but does not make the same demands. He will perceive some other seat of omnipotence; some great, eternal force that somehow makes life and cosmic order good.
But to speak too much of this force is dangerous. It is all to likely that it will fall beyond the range scientific understanding. There is even the chance that we might start call the it a He. This, I believe, is the real issue that naturalism must deal with: what is the true nature of the natural law whereby the events of the universe have transpired? Is the real implication of such a law the existence of a personal deity? Or is it just another law, more akin to gravity, or herdity, or relativity, perhaps existing on a slightly larger scale?
In any case, I believe that such considerations will ultimately find naturalists running from the implication that the directional operation that they find within the evolutionary processes which, they claim, have relplaced God, has in the end proved a foil that re-introduces the very kind of transcendent power that made them uncomfortable in the first place. Of course, I will not say that I have thus proved God such as I believe Him to be. Yet I keep returning to the same impliction when I think it over: existence- meaningful, beautiful, moral existence, in which there are so many shades of value and goals which justify it- this is more than mindless matter and vague cosmic laws. This is the work of God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Please bear with the enormous length of this post. And please feel no need to apologize about bringing these issues up, I am quite happy to discuss them. The only reason I had left them alone before is that at the time I felt that they would be a distraction from some of the larger religious and philosophical issues. For this very reason, I don't stress out about this too much. I do indeed agree the evolution does not equal atheism (even if the former is an indispensable doctrine to the latter). Before Darwin, many people found plenty of reasons to reject Christianity and the Bible, and many of those who hold to Darwin's teachings accept the truth of both. That's why I say that the issues of science and evolution are not, by themselves, central to religious and philosophical debate here.
Nonetheless, science certainly does bring up issues regarding how we are to view Scripture, or at least particular portions of it. When you ask how the Bible can have literal relevance in our age, I believe that there is a point that should be made here: the primary relevance of the Bible is not, in my belief, any different now than it was when it was first written. I say this with respect to the fact that the purpose of the Bible is not at all to provide a scientific account that is satisfactory to the modern scientific method, nor is it to provide exact historical details. It is very tempting to view the Bible through the lense of our modern thinking, but if we are to rightly understand it, we must approach it according to the literary culture in which it was written, and it is the meaning found therein that has relevance. The Bible is a narrative whose point is to describe the relationship between God and humanity: how humans were made by God, turned away from Him, and how God, through the nation of Israel, brought a chance to restore this broken relationship through Christ, and then goes on to describe much of the theology behind all this. This summary, though clearly inadequate, is enough to tell us that the physical workings of the universe are not the real matter of concern in Scripture. We can both be glad that God has left that up to us. Therefore, I believe that we can accept much, if not most, of the Bible as literal without even having to deal with issues of scientific and historical accuracy.
Yet, as you point out, there are some points at which the Biblical accounts and scientific accounts seem irreconcilable, and this does bring up important questions on how we view both science and the Bible. Here it is important to note that evolution (the branch of science dealing with the origin of life and of the earth) differs from other sciences in that it does not involve direct observation. It is concerned with past events that do not repeat themselves, meaning that there is no absolute "fingerprint" evidence that conclusively proves that this is how it occurred. For example, we have the fossil record: it exists in part, thus demonstrating the possibility that life forms changed in that way, but it is not complete, so that we cannot know whether it actually happened that way. It is here that the larger scope of one's epistemological foundations must come into play. For one whose basic philosophy is built around the concept of a transcendent, personal deity, (as mine is) there is no reason to believe that God could not have done things quite exactly how it is described in Genesis, if He so chose. For one who does not believe in such a God, our scientific speculations on the earth's distant past are the clear alternative.
In one sense, it seems as though it would be fully within the character of God to create the world by means of the evolutionary processes that have been put forth by modern science, for the reason that He loves order and logic, and would like to see His laws unfold on their own. On the other hand, it seems fitting for Him to speak everything into existence as Genesis records, because He is a personal being who likes to have direct relation with His world. In this way, both alternatives seem fitting based upon God's nature, and my understanding of how Scripture (as God's revealed word within my worldview) is best interpreted inclines me toward the latter. As mentioned, the scientific issue is not one of absolute proof on this issue, so that I believe I am justified in going with the explanation that makes most sense based on my philosophical and epistemological foundations. Darwin's epistemological foundations did not include God, so it only follows that he would rely on an explanation of the formation of life that left did not include Him. If one accepts the type of God who would create, the whole picture changes. Like I said, evolution is not atheism. But if one is not an atheist, I don't see a reason why evolution is absolutely necessary.
Much of this goes back to the point I made some time ago that much of this really depends on our respective epistemological and philosophical frames-of-reference, whereby it is rational, within my basic understanding of the universe and God, to accept the Bible as His word, but for someone with a different understanding, this would not be rational at all. I think the same applies here. Unfortunately those issues upon which so much hang are often the most difficult to debate. But I'm more than willing to try, if you would like! And thanks for asking these questions; I hope that my answers are at least a little helpful.
As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17
P.S. Sorry, I didn't answer your 3 questions: I'm not sure about the age of the earth. The Bible isn't clear, but I'm not completely comfortable with the 4 Billion date. Some argue for a worldwide flood, others say Genesis meant a local flood. I might accept either, but I don't really see where it matters a great deal. Many have argued that the Bible makes reference to Dinosaurs (Leviathan and behemoth in Job.) At any rate, it says nothing indicating that they didn't exist. Hominids, in my belief, only have relevance within a worldiew that directly excludes the Biblical account; I don't think the fossil record has proven their existence. But then again, it's quite possible that some monkey-like species have existed and gone extinct, and have left us interesting bones. I really don't know.
Xeric, in case you consider it worth your time to read this comment, there are just a few things that I should say. One is regarding my science education. It is (you've probably guessed) very limited. I've taken few science courses over the years, not because the subject matter did not interest me, nor was I reluctant to know more, but (and this is a bad reason, I'll admitt) the coursework in these classes never appealed to me; only the concepts and theories proved appealing. The point is, I have not learned enough scientific fact to give me a strong basis for this discussion. I feel that I have only been able to make rational observations from what little I have learned.
I'm sorry if I've offended you. There was certainly not intended. I think that I have made it clear enough that I do respect your worldview, and that I certainly respect science, when it has been undertaken in a legitmate way. I don't think you can blame me for doubting whether everything that some scientist has claimed as fact actually is; show me the research, show me the evidence, and I will gladly evaluate it upon it's own merits. For the first time, I've understood how much of a shortcoming in my education this has been, and I would be more than happy to be corrected where I have erred.
Ultimately, how you choose to view me does not matter; if you would only see me as an intolerant, closed-minded fourteenth-century throwback, you may do so. But I really believe that this opinion is not justified. Much of my epistomological perspective here comes from science itself, and frankly, I would be glad learn where I have been mistaken.
In your reaction to what I said, it seems as though you feel that science has killed God after all. And I know that you don't believe that, Xeric. You've said so yourself. I don't see where correction on what scientific misconceptions I might have is any threat to my belief in God. I did not make the scientific statements I made as things to back up my belief in God; on the contrary, you asked what I thought, and I gave an honest answer. Because the whole subject is not my forte, I was just delivering rather personal musings, much of which was stumbling in the dark. I was not discussing the central tenents of my belief system.
Well, if you've taken time to read this, I don't want detain you any longer, so I'll just say that I'm sorry that you feel that there can be no more discussion on this point. I had greatly enjoyed it, and do hope that our other discussion can continue. I look forward to learning what I can on your site.
Thanks for being willing to continue. Again, I wasn't trying to be closed-minded and just spout off religious cliches. I'll admit that's not going to be helpful to a serious discussion. For this reason, I'll agree to set aside these assumptions (although I don't view any of these as first epistemological facts anyway, with the possible exception of the last, in which I hold to the somewhat existencialist idea that we can have first-hand knowledge of God through individual internal experience of Him. But maybe this type of Divine action doesn't even qualify as an interference of physics.) However, I would like to know in which ways you find Christianity to be mystical.
I think that this discussion came to the threshold of complete impass because we were hitting head-on at two different angles: you were, I believe, viewing it as a scientific exploration of physical reality, wheras I was viewing it as an evaluation of the hermaneutical issues of the Bible. Of course, science and religion do have potential to have implications for the other, and I believe that this inteface between the two is a good subject of discussion. I'll probably write another post which raises some of the issues here.
One thing that will probably be of benifet for you to know is the perspective on science that has been behind much of what I have written. Sometimes I have felt somewhat forced into a position of scientific agnosticism, if you will. The reason for this is that I have seen much bias on both sides of the issue. There have been many scientists, who have been so opposed to the idea of the divine that it is almost as though they have built their ideas around the purpose explaining why He is not needed. On the other hand, there has been a growing number of scientists who support the intelligent design movement, many of whom I expect have had presuppositions of their own. Sadly, this situation has probably embittered me against the entire science dealing with origins, because I have so often felt that there are two groups each with there own set of "facts" that are really just contrivences to support their presuppositions. Therefore, I have often preferred to deal directly with these philosophical starting points, so as to circumvent this abuse of science as a source of subjective "facts". This is the reason why I would like to better understand for myself what science really has to say.
The bottom line is that good epistemology requires us to look beyond our assumptions to critically evaluate reality, and then to make assumptions that are justified by this study (that is, where it becomes more rational to make an assumption than to doubt, as you put it once, and quite nicely.) It also requires intellectual virtues such as humility, honesty, open-mindedness, and a pure love of truth (ergo, the name of my blog). I hope that I can live up to it! Thank you for your shared interest in this value.
P.S. Thanks for including the links to those web pages. I intend to spend some time on them.
Post a Comment