We’ll be delving into the Bible over the next 40 weeks and I think you’ll find it enjoyable. Of course, a Biblical study can last months or years, but we’ll be focusing primarily on Biblical truths, historical reliability, archeological data, etc, so there will be portions that I do not cover as in-depth. I wavered a bit on whether to start off from the New Testament and reference the old, but in the end I have decided to take it chronologically beginning, of course, with the Creation. That being said, a Biblical discussion doesn’t do a great deal of good unless you know what you are looking for in the first place. So, I would like to take this week to discuss what exactly we should hope to glean from Biblical text.
Literal versus True
First and foremost, declaring that some or all of the Bible is true is not tantamount to saying that everything written in the Bible literally took place. As an analogy, let’s take a look at the phrase “raining cats and dogs”. The etymology of this phrase takes us back to Europe where houses were built so close together that rooftops were shared and the roofs almost became a landscape unto themselves. Stray animals would often make the rooftops their home and when rain came in torrents, it was not uncommon for the stray cats and dogs to literally rain onto the ground below when they lost their footing. When someone in suburban Oklahoma uses the phrase, however, he is not referring to cats and dogs literally raining down upon the ground; rather, he is saying that the rain is heavy. Both the Brit and the Oklahoman are speaking the truth, though one (or possibly both, depending on how you define “rain”) is not speaking a literal truth. The Bible, likewise, is wrought with metaphor. There are some who choose a literal interpretation, but I think this mindset leads to confusion and/or untruth. In my own Biblical studies, I have found that the metaphors are almost as easy to discern as they are in a Mark Twain novel, though sometimes ambiguous translations or a lack of understanding of the original language can make it more difficult. The only thing that I can guarantee as we begin to study the Bible is that I will be honest with myself and with you as we encounter metaphoric language and not-so-straight-forward terminology. In other words, the goal is not “to have [my] cake and eat it too”.
Historical Perspective
In my own studies, I have found that the Bible compares well historically to secular texts and I will do my utmost to provide historical parallels (probably after we discuss the Creation) during each discussion. The Bible is one of the most well-preserved historical texts we have and it is important not to dismiss it as a “nice story”. Secular texts and archeological data point to a very genuine desire for historical preservation.
My View of the Bible
The Bible is true. Or it is not. There is no middle ground. Why is this? Biblical authors make the claim (within the Bible) that the Bible is the Word of God (sometimes translated “God-breathed”). Nearly all of the Biblical authors claim to have spoken directly to God or to have recorded the stories of Jesus’ apostles. So, either:
A. The Bible is a hoax (and therefore completely untrue) perpetuated by the supposed followers of God/Christ.
B. The Bible is the product of some mass delusion (and therefore cannot be relied upon to be true)
C. The Bible is true.
Lying, crazy, or truthful. I believe these are the only three options. So, as you read the Bible, I encourage you to keep these three possibilities in mind. It is important, too, to recall that we do not know what limits if any may be imposed on a God who is not of the universe.
I apologize for the break between posts, but I’ll be out of town for a time and I want to stagger two posts over three weeks.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Pink Unicorns, Teacups, and Flying Spaghetti Monsters (Week 11)
It would seem that God has many names. Over the past decade, a multitude of atheist authors (or student demonstrators, in the case of the spaghetti monster) have taken turns comparing a “mythological” God to various mythological creatures. Despite a truly creative take on Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel artwork in the case of the spaghetti monster, the comparisons have a tendency to fall well short.
To illustrate the silliness of such comparisons, it is important at some point that I take a moment to define what I mean by “God”. Ascribing a definition to a supernatural, incomprehensible being is always a fun exercise so I hope you enjoy.
As an atheist or an agnostic, it is easy to view world religions as being the same. Most religious followers believe in a supernatural being or beings. Most speak to an afterlife. Most believe in a sacred text. And so on, and so on…. When you study anthropology, you realize that every culture throughout history has had a story pertaining to a supernatural god or gods. It all begins to run together. I’ve been to college. I’ve been agnostic. I get it. There are, however, a few qualities that we can ascribe to God based on some reasonable assumptions that are not related to any specific religion. I’ll list the assumptions and reasoning for those assumptions first:
1. The universe began at some point in the distant past.
I devoted an entire post to this idea and the idea itself is based on physical principles and observations that have been validated again and again. Static universe theory at this point is all but forgotten.
2. If God is of the universe, He is a natural, material being and cannot have been responsible for the creation of the universe; conversely, if God is not of the universe, His abilities and qualities can be neither described nor confined by natural, physical principles.
Basically, if matter (and antimatter), energy, time, and space are all that exist, God would be susceptible to the physical principles that govern these four elements and would therefore simply be an extraterrestrial being.
So, what does this mean as we define God?
1. If the universe began and time is of the universe, any being(s) existing ontologically before the universe, existed / exist outside of the confines of time. If there is a God, He would fit into this category; as such, God must be eternal (i.e. not of or subject to time).
2. Furthermore, cause and effect are products of time. Within the confines of the universe, effects must have a cause. Outside of time, cause and effect are meaningless. So, God need not be caused. Accordingly, the question “What caused God?” is not a meaningful one.
3. Conversely, if God is not eternal (i.e. if He never existed outside of the universe), He must be susceptible to the rules of the universe. Therefore, He is not God; rather, He is a natural being. Because we do not define natural beings as God, God must either be eternal and supernatural or He must be nonexistent.
4. If God exists, He is eternal and cannot be subject to universal laws. Further, because the universe is not eternal, pantheism (the idea that God is the universe) must not be true.
5. Since God is not subject to universal laws, He cannot be limited as a physical being. “Physical” is a concept that only makes sense when applied to things that are of the universe.
6. Because God is physically limitless and is not subject to time or physical law, we cannot comprehend His presence, His perception, or His power. Accordingly, the ideas of God’s omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence are meaningful relative to the universe.
7. There can be only one omnipotent God. If there exist multiple gods, each god would have a role and would be limited, thus implying that each god was lacking something another possessed. If a being is limited, it is not God.
So, in comparing God to a spaghetti monster or a pink unicorn, we’re make the comparison between a being who is eternal and who may be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent to physical beings who must be naturalistic because they are defined as physical beings. The properties of God follow logically from the idea that God is not of the universe. If we ascribe these properties to any physical entity, we come back to God. In short, God is or God isn’t.
As an atheist or an agnostic, it is easy to view world religions as being the same. Most religious followers believe in a supernatural being or beings. Most speak to an afterlife. Most believe in a sacred text. And so on, and so on…. When you study anthropology, you realize that every culture throughout history has had a story pertaining to a supernatural god or gods. It all begins to run together. I’ve been to college. I’ve been agnostic. I get it. There are, however, a few qualities that we can ascribe to God based on some reasonable assumptions that are not related to any specific religion. I’ll list the assumptions and reasoning for those assumptions first:
1. The universe began at some point in the distant past.
I devoted an entire post to this idea and the idea itself is based on physical principles and observations that have been validated again and again. Static universe theory at this point is all but forgotten.
2. If God is of the universe, He is a natural, material being and cannot have been responsible for the creation of the universe; conversely, if God is not of the universe, His abilities and qualities can be neither described nor confined by natural, physical principles.
Basically, if matter (and antimatter), energy, time, and space are all that exist, God would be susceptible to the physical principles that govern these four elements and would therefore simply be an extraterrestrial being.
So, what does this mean as we define God?
1. If the universe began and time is of the universe, any being(s) existing ontologically before the universe, existed / exist outside of the confines of time. If there is a God, He would fit into this category; as such, God must be eternal (i.e. not of or subject to time).
2. Furthermore, cause and effect are products of time. Within the confines of the universe, effects must have a cause. Outside of time, cause and effect are meaningless. So, God need not be caused. Accordingly, the question “What caused God?” is not a meaningful one.
3. Conversely, if God is not eternal (i.e. if He never existed outside of the universe), He must be susceptible to the rules of the universe. Therefore, He is not God; rather, He is a natural being. Because we do not define natural beings as God, God must either be eternal and supernatural or He must be nonexistent.
4. If God exists, He is eternal and cannot be subject to universal laws. Further, because the universe is not eternal, pantheism (the idea that God is the universe) must not be true.
5. Since God is not subject to universal laws, He cannot be limited as a physical being. “Physical” is a concept that only makes sense when applied to things that are of the universe.
6. Because God is physically limitless and is not subject to time or physical law, we cannot comprehend His presence, His perception, or His power. Accordingly, the ideas of God’s omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence are meaningful relative to the universe.
7. There can be only one omnipotent God. If there exist multiple gods, each god would have a role and would be limited, thus implying that each god was lacking something another possessed. If a being is limited, it is not God.
So, in comparing God to a spaghetti monster or a pink unicorn, we’re make the comparison between a being who is eternal and who may be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent to physical beings who must be naturalistic because they are defined as physical beings. The properties of God follow logically from the idea that God is not of the universe. If we ascribe these properties to any physical entity, we come back to God. In short, God is or God isn’t.
When I speak of God, I am not speaking of some being. I am speaking instead of a being who must possess certain properties or who cannot be labeled as God. To be clear, these are not Biblical descriptions of God but descriptions pertaining to a God who is supernatural (or outside of nature).
14 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם
14. God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
Friday, March 13, 2009
Science versus Religion
I welcome comments and questions following each week’s post, and as I read these comments, I’m often I’m struck by how little people seem to agree upon. The reality, however, is that we tend to agree on a great many things that we simply don’t acknowledge. One theme that I’ve noted both here and in watching debates between religious leaders and atheist authorities is that science is rather commonly viewed as being in opposition to religion. In the weeks leading up to this post, though, what I’ve found is that we all generally accept the scientific facts; we just don’t accept one another’s conclusions. I am certain that both theists and atheists have a tendency to cast aside science that doesn’t accord with their beliefs, but I find that theists are often criticized for eschewing science simply by proclaiming a belief in God.
I recall a class 14 years ago in which one of my instructors was asking whether we believed that dinosaurs once populated the earth. I don’t recall where the question was leading; however, I do recall his perplexed expression when a rather resounding “No” came from a girl in the back of the class. Given his abrupt change in demeanor, he was obviously expecting the perfunctory “Yes” that generally followed that question. “Why”, he asked, “would you not believe in the existence of dinosaurs given so much fossil evidence?” The reply (one I’ll never forget) was, “I think God put dinosaur fossils on Earth to test our faith.” The funny thing is that if you believe in a supremely powerful, intelligent God, you must believe that she could be correct; still, she was obviously casting aside scientific discoveries in order to preserve her notions of religion. I don’t believe this is a reasonable course of action. Nor do I believe that you’ll find a claim of this ilk by reading this blog.
Last week, I asked several questions regarding how naturalistic development could yield some of the traits our society values today. I indirectly claimed that many traits we laud in America were opposed to the Darwinian philosophy of “survival of the fittest”. It was demonstrated to me that you can indeed explain these traits – especially if you assume that an act like heroism is really a misapplication of an early human “saving-people-close-to-me = good” philosophy – via naturalism. I would presume that the majority of people would agree that my religious views are at odds with the scientific view of morality via evolution. I, however, would disagree. I don’t disagree that the two ideas are opposed to one another; rather, I disagree with is the notion that non-religious = scientific.
You’ll probably never hear the phrase “scientific theory of creationism” employed, but most won’t bat an eye at the above phrase: “scientific view of morality via evolution”. If you encounter a reasonable argument for naturalism or for creationism, you’ll likely see that both employ the same scientific evidence and yet the argument may still be viewed as a religion-versus-science argument. Science is not at odds with God. In fact, theists should be the most adamant scientists on the planet; after all, if you believe in God, science gives you the tools to better understand God’s creation.
Science is and always will be a search for natural causes, but what I’ve noticed is that the quest for natural causes is becoming a religion unto itself. This religion has quietly permeated our thinking so that we internally characterize science as being contradictory to a belief in God. Quite simply, it’s not. Science is a tool. Famed atheist Richard Dawkins talks of the absurdity associated with theism (analogizing belief in God to belief in a giant, supernatural teacup). He’s speaks to the supremacy of science, but proclaims that he is all but certain that God does not exist. What a silly, unscientific assertion! If one can theorize a natural explanation, that does not mean that all supernatural explanations are rubbish.
If, for instance, two people trust in the Big Bang Theory and one concludes that the theory points to a creator while the other disagrees, neither is operating in a more or less “scientific” way than the other. The scientific evidence of the Big Bang is agreed to. It is our reasoning that differs. Science is wraught with gaps. Often times, those gaps are filled through a better scientific understanding. Sometimes, however, no definitive explanation can be offered. It is at these times that we turn to theory and reason. If reasoning leads us to the supernatural, so be it.
Over the past several weeks, we’ve looked at some of the reasons that I believe science yields evidence for God. I want to be clear, though:
I do not hold to the view that anyone apart from God can prove the existence of God.
Ultimately, you must exercise faith. If you believe in God, you must know that science will never prove God. If you don’t believe in God, you must exercise your faith that naturalistic theories provide sufficient explanation for man’s existence. That being said, I believe that we can all agree that some brands of faith are more reasonable than others. Sometimes you may exercise faith in spite of evidence (e.g. I have faith that my abusive husband won’t hit me), while other times you may exercise faith because of evidence (e.g. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow). I will continue to expound upon why I believe that faith in God is the most reasonable faith based on the available evidence. Hopefully, we can begin to move away from the idea that religion and science are at odds and attempt to construct the most reasonable model.
I recall a class 14 years ago in which one of my instructors was asking whether we believed that dinosaurs once populated the earth. I don’t recall where the question was leading; however, I do recall his perplexed expression when a rather resounding “No” came from a girl in the back of the class. Given his abrupt change in demeanor, he was obviously expecting the perfunctory “Yes” that generally followed that question. “Why”, he asked, “would you not believe in the existence of dinosaurs given so much fossil evidence?” The reply (one I’ll never forget) was, “I think God put dinosaur fossils on Earth to test our faith.” The funny thing is that if you believe in a supremely powerful, intelligent God, you must believe that she could be correct; still, she was obviously casting aside scientific discoveries in order to preserve her notions of religion. I don’t believe this is a reasonable course of action. Nor do I believe that you’ll find a claim of this ilk by reading this blog.
Last week, I asked several questions regarding how naturalistic development could yield some of the traits our society values today. I indirectly claimed that many traits we laud in America were opposed to the Darwinian philosophy of “survival of the fittest”. It was demonstrated to me that you can indeed explain these traits – especially if you assume that an act like heroism is really a misapplication of an early human “saving-people-close-to-me = good” philosophy – via naturalism. I would presume that the majority of people would agree that my religious views are at odds with the scientific view of morality via evolution. I, however, would disagree. I don’t disagree that the two ideas are opposed to one another; rather, I disagree with is the notion that non-religious = scientific.
You’ll probably never hear the phrase “scientific theory of creationism” employed, but most won’t bat an eye at the above phrase: “scientific view of morality via evolution”. If you encounter a reasonable argument for naturalism or for creationism, you’ll likely see that both employ the same scientific evidence and yet the argument may still be viewed as a religion-versus-science argument. Science is not at odds with God. In fact, theists should be the most adamant scientists on the planet; after all, if you believe in God, science gives you the tools to better understand God’s creation.
Science is and always will be a search for natural causes, but what I’ve noticed is that the quest for natural causes is becoming a religion unto itself. This religion has quietly permeated our thinking so that we internally characterize science as being contradictory to a belief in God. Quite simply, it’s not. Science is a tool. Famed atheist Richard Dawkins talks of the absurdity associated with theism (analogizing belief in God to belief in a giant, supernatural teacup). He’s speaks to the supremacy of science, but proclaims that he is all but certain that God does not exist. What a silly, unscientific assertion! If one can theorize a natural explanation, that does not mean that all supernatural explanations are rubbish.
If, for instance, two people trust in the Big Bang Theory and one concludes that the theory points to a creator while the other disagrees, neither is operating in a more or less “scientific” way than the other. The scientific evidence of the Big Bang is agreed to. It is our reasoning that differs. Science is wraught with gaps. Often times, those gaps are filled through a better scientific understanding. Sometimes, however, no definitive explanation can be offered. It is at these times that we turn to theory and reason. If reasoning leads us to the supernatural, so be it.
Over the past several weeks, we’ve looked at some of the reasons that I believe science yields evidence for God. I want to be clear, though:
I do not hold to the view that anyone apart from God can prove the existence of God.
Ultimately, you must exercise faith. If you believe in God, you must know that science will never prove God. If you don’t believe in God, you must exercise your faith that naturalistic theories provide sufficient explanation for man’s existence. That being said, I believe that we can all agree that some brands of faith are more reasonable than others. Sometimes you may exercise faith in spite of evidence (e.g. I have faith that my abusive husband won’t hit me), while other times you may exercise faith because of evidence (e.g. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow). I will continue to expound upon why I believe that faith in God is the most reasonable faith based on the available evidence. Hopefully, we can begin to move away from the idea that religion and science are at odds and attempt to construct the most reasonable model.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
You Take the Good, You Take the Bad... (Week 9)
If a good/just/righteous God exists, why is there so much evil in the world?
This is a fun question to me for two reasons:
1. The question really doesn’t make a lot of sense without God.
2. With God, the answer is not as difficult as it first appears.
Allow me to elaborate…
IF THERE IS NO GOD, HOW IS THERE ANY EVIL IN THE WORLD?
Natural Development of Moral Law:
Let us assume for the sake of argument that God doesn’t exist. We are here then, by default, through a progressive series of naturalistic processes and humanity has survived as the fittest of Earth’s creatures. Obviously, we have a sense of morality, so we’ll have to assume that it developed naturally. Depending on which continent your ancestors evolved and which tribulations they faced, your society will have developed its own system of laws and some sort of governed morality intent on preserving the society as a whole. With few exceptions, every society develops a few common laws:
- You prohibit the killing of offspring (because how else would you grow your society?)
- You honor and respect your elders (maybe a selfish law, because you don’t want to be killed off in your old age)
Etc.
And, each society develops different societal laws depending upon various factors that the society’s thinkers believe will help shape the society. Through the generations, these laws are ingrained to the point that each society develops an internal sense of what is right and what is wrong.
You: So… great, Randy… didn’t you just fashion an argument that shows how natural processes and the evolution of societal principles can lead to a sense of morality?
Me: That I did!
Now, let’s let our evolved, natural minds pore over the situation at hand. We should be able to see that although we may feel (through conditioning and evolutionary genetic predisposition) that something is wrong, we can see rationally that the “crime” is simply something that goes against the societal norms. Furthermore, a criminal is really just a person whose genes and/or upbringing have failed him (not a sexist… it’s just easier from here on out to say “him” since English doesn’t possess an appropriate gender-neutral pronoun). The criminal is not “evil”. He’s just doing what he was predisposed to do. We can still legislate against crimes for the overall good of society and hopefully we can deter anti-social behavior, but when crimes are committed, it’s extremely insensitive to think of the perpetrator as “evil”. A child-killer is no more “evil” than a predator who selects the youngest and slowest antelope for lunch. It’s innate.
Survival of the Fittest?
Now, let’s fast-forward to today in the United States. We have evolved through natural processes and developed a sense of morality that values tolerance, altruism, and uncommon heroism above all else. How does this make sense?
One of the worst societal sins is intolerance. We ostracize those who think lesser of other races / genders / beliefs and preach love and tolerance for all. Even if someone disagrees with societal norms, our society cherishes the right to do so. Why appreciate diversity? Why allow people to vocalize dissention? Doesn’t this work to tear down a society?
Our altruism leads us to fashion laws for the creation of handicap-accessible buildings, to stage the Special Olympics, to fund collegiate sports that 1 in 100 people don’t even know exist, to mandate monetary donations to people having financial difficulties. Wouldn’t society prosper even more if we allowed these people to fend for themselves?
If a 25-year-old Marine officer were to push an 80-year-old handicapped lady out of the way of oncoming traffic only to die in the process, we would hail him as a hero. What in the world for? Our society has lost a productive member and we will be forced to continue to pay for the elder lady’s Medicaid bills. She may siphon off our societal resources for 20 more years!
We value the minority at the expense of the majority. We hold free elections, but give a voice to those who criticize our societal choices. We remove resources from the many to prop up the weak and care for the infirmed. What is wrong with us? Evolution has obviously failed the United States. Somewhere we took a wrong turn.
WITH CHOICE COMES EVIL
Let’s now assume that God does exist and He finds Himself at a pivotal moment. He is contemplating the creation of humanity. What are God’s options?
1. Create no humans.
2. Create humans with an inability to do evil.
3. Create humans with an ability to do evil.
Option 1 is fairly straightforward and Option 3 would be what we have, so let’s look at Option 2….
Now, since God is judging good versus bad, “good” would have to be equal to “that which God would do in a given situation” (WWGD?). So, in creating humanity, God would be forced to create creatures who could not make decisions that weren’t in accordance with His own. So, all of humanity would be like-minded and the thoughts of humans would accord to the thoughts of God. What has God created, then? Is humanity at all separate from God? Is there a purpose for humanity? What the three options break down to are:
1. Create no humans.
2. Create humans who are an extension of God.
3. Create humans who are separate creatures from God.
There is no fourth option: Create humans with “free will” who will not choose evil.
CONCLUSION
Evil cannot exist without an absolute standard of good. With no absolute standard, “right” is relative. A “criminal” is really just a minority. And, if the criminal act gains the support of a society, it ceases to be criminal. The act itself was never “evil”; rather, it was anti-social until it wasn’t. In fact, if we truly wish to embrace naturalism, a society may choose to “cleanse” itself through good ole fashion natural selection when times get rough. Adolf Hitler recognizes this sentiment in his book Mein Kampf:
"...[ the Nazi philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe."
We recognize evil. We understand justice. We adopt laws and appreciate virtues that contradict natural selection. Is there any reason to believe that we could have adopted these traits through naturalism? Or is it more reasonable to believe that there is an absolute standard of morality that gives us the ability to recognize that survival is not paramount?
This is a fun question to me for two reasons:
1. The question really doesn’t make a lot of sense without God.
2. With God, the answer is not as difficult as it first appears.
Allow me to elaborate…
IF THERE IS NO GOD, HOW IS THERE ANY EVIL IN THE WORLD?
Natural Development of Moral Law:
Let us assume for the sake of argument that God doesn’t exist. We are here then, by default, through a progressive series of naturalistic processes and humanity has survived as the fittest of Earth’s creatures. Obviously, we have a sense of morality, so we’ll have to assume that it developed naturally. Depending on which continent your ancestors evolved and which tribulations they faced, your society will have developed its own system of laws and some sort of governed morality intent on preserving the society as a whole. With few exceptions, every society develops a few common laws:
- You prohibit the killing of offspring (because how else would you grow your society?)
- You honor and respect your elders (maybe a selfish law, because you don’t want to be killed off in your old age)
Etc.
And, each society develops different societal laws depending upon various factors that the society’s thinkers believe will help shape the society. Through the generations, these laws are ingrained to the point that each society develops an internal sense of what is right and what is wrong.
You: So… great, Randy… didn’t you just fashion an argument that shows how natural processes and the evolution of societal principles can lead to a sense of morality?
Me: That I did!
Now, let’s let our evolved, natural minds pore over the situation at hand. We should be able to see that although we may feel (through conditioning and evolutionary genetic predisposition) that something is wrong, we can see rationally that the “crime” is simply something that goes against the societal norms. Furthermore, a criminal is really just a person whose genes and/or upbringing have failed him (not a sexist… it’s just easier from here on out to say “him” since English doesn’t possess an appropriate gender-neutral pronoun). The criminal is not “evil”. He’s just doing what he was predisposed to do. We can still legislate against crimes for the overall good of society and hopefully we can deter anti-social behavior, but when crimes are committed, it’s extremely insensitive to think of the perpetrator as “evil”. A child-killer is no more “evil” than a predator who selects the youngest and slowest antelope for lunch. It’s innate.
Survival of the Fittest?
Now, let’s fast-forward to today in the United States. We have evolved through natural processes and developed a sense of morality that values tolerance, altruism, and uncommon heroism above all else. How does this make sense?
One of the worst societal sins is intolerance. We ostracize those who think lesser of other races / genders / beliefs and preach love and tolerance for all. Even if someone disagrees with societal norms, our society cherishes the right to do so. Why appreciate diversity? Why allow people to vocalize dissention? Doesn’t this work to tear down a society?
Our altruism leads us to fashion laws for the creation of handicap-accessible buildings, to stage the Special Olympics, to fund collegiate sports that 1 in 100 people don’t even know exist, to mandate monetary donations to people having financial difficulties. Wouldn’t society prosper even more if we allowed these people to fend for themselves?
If a 25-year-old Marine officer were to push an 80-year-old handicapped lady out of the way of oncoming traffic only to die in the process, we would hail him as a hero. What in the world for? Our society has lost a productive member and we will be forced to continue to pay for the elder lady’s Medicaid bills. She may siphon off our societal resources for 20 more years!
We value the minority at the expense of the majority. We hold free elections, but give a voice to those who criticize our societal choices. We remove resources from the many to prop up the weak and care for the infirmed. What is wrong with us? Evolution has obviously failed the United States. Somewhere we took a wrong turn.
WITH CHOICE COMES EVIL
Let’s now assume that God does exist and He finds Himself at a pivotal moment. He is contemplating the creation of humanity. What are God’s options?
1. Create no humans.
2. Create humans with an inability to do evil.
3. Create humans with an ability to do evil.
Option 1 is fairly straightforward and Option 3 would be what we have, so let’s look at Option 2….
Now, since God is judging good versus bad, “good” would have to be equal to “that which God would do in a given situation” (WWGD?). So, in creating humanity, God would be forced to create creatures who could not make decisions that weren’t in accordance with His own. So, all of humanity would be like-minded and the thoughts of humans would accord to the thoughts of God. What has God created, then? Is humanity at all separate from God? Is there a purpose for humanity? What the three options break down to are:
1. Create no humans.
2. Create humans who are an extension of God.
3. Create humans who are separate creatures from God.
There is no fourth option: Create humans with “free will” who will not choose evil.
CONCLUSION
Evil cannot exist without an absolute standard of good. With no absolute standard, “right” is relative. A “criminal” is really just a minority. And, if the criminal act gains the support of a society, it ceases to be criminal. The act itself was never “evil”; rather, it was anti-social until it wasn’t. In fact, if we truly wish to embrace naturalism, a society may choose to “cleanse” itself through good ole fashion natural selection when times get rough. Adolf Hitler recognizes this sentiment in his book Mein Kampf:
"...[ the Nazi philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe."
We recognize evil. We understand justice. We adopt laws and appreciate virtues that contradict natural selection. Is there any reason to believe that we could have adopted these traits through naturalism? Or is it more reasonable to believe that there is an absolute standard of morality that gives us the ability to recognize that survival is not paramount?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
