Attached with this post is a fascinating You Tube video from Dr. John West from the Discovery Institute dealing with the initiative from the scientific community in dealing with religious expression centered around an accepting disposition towards Darwinian evolution. As you view it, you note a trend that such religious expression is confined to liberal theologians that would agree with a theistic evolutionary process, declaring the compatibility of science and religion. That is, if science has the final say on what is true religion. Dr. West makes a statement that such contacts with liberal Christian denominations would be welcomed, but there would be warnings if the neighborhood would be defined as a religiously conservative bloc. Then such a welcome to religious expression on evolution would be forbidden.
The hypocrisy is thick. The listing of religious organizations that Dr. Eugenie Scott would promote might just as well double as a listing of the apostate church.
It is the nature of the viewing of areas of life as liberal and conservative that makes me wonder about the nature of the field of apologetics. In the defense of the faith, is there a degree of liberalism and conservatism, and if so, to what degree does it hamper the study of this discipline? I acknowledge that there are apologetes that embrace theistic evolution (William Lane Craig) and old earth creationism (Dr. Hugh Ross). As a young earth creationist, I would disagree with these fine men on this issue. But their understanding of the nature of Christ's ministry of substitutionary atonement is a basic area of agreement. I laud Dr. Craig's efforts in debating (and decisively!) the panoply of the New Atheists. I respect Dr. Ross' work in his field of science. I would never hold a candle to them in their areas of expertise. Still, I humbly consider the matter as the efficacy of macroevolution as ill-defined. The Question Evolution Movement has cited fifteen hardcore questions that show that evolution has not, and possibly will never, explain the origin of life, sexuality, intriquate celluar structures, etc. I hold to a simple line of argument.
Premise 1: The origin of the universe is either explained by natural or supernatural causes.
Premise 2: The naturalistic explanations have been found wanting, particularly in the light of discrediting possible supernatural agencies.
Conclusion: The origin of the universe could plausibly be caused by supernatural agencies.
This could be as conservative a position as one can imagine. Does this lead to a rupture between liberal and conservative apologetics. No. I value the classical apologetical approach of Dr. Craig, but I assume an evidential approach, even though by rights my Lutheranism would make me a fideist. But I understand I could produce rationale for faith, based on evidence. I find myself disagreeing with some of the points raised by apologists as Lane, Licona, and even McDowell (Josh and Sean). But the essentials of the faith we defend are consistent. The brilliancy of apologetics is a well-defined "agreement to disagree" on matters. The code of all apolgetes is found in 1 Peter 3: 15 after all:
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts; and always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, with humility and fear. (WEB)
Now for Dr. West. Watch and ponder.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
On Also-Rans and the Issue of "Electablity"
The recent victories of Rick Santorum in Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri, coupled with Ron Paul's improved showings in Maine and the CPAC Convention leads to a gratifying feeling that the remaining four Republican candidates will have an engaging campaign through the remainder of the season. The complacent world of journalism tends to generalize too soon, and a failure of producing a string of endless Mitt Romney victories has put the pre-presidential campaign of Barack Obama vs. Republican contender into a desirable limbo. We are far from electing a president at this time, and straw polls and surveys are lame substitutes for the reality of November 2012. We have four candidates, and all have made token remarks to win over the conservative element of their party.
The general misgivings on Santorum and Paul has been the idea that they would not fare well in a theoretical showdown with the President at this time. Voters have been given the specter of some entity called "electability." This quality is presented as a sine qua non for candidacy. As these two have not done well in the early primaries, it has become a foregone conclusion that Paul or Santorum are not qualified to run. A campaign of two candidates would be more appealing than one with four, especially if the two definitely present something of a widened political spectrum, a moderate versus a conservative. Too many conservatives seem to be superfluous.
However, the argument could be expressed that the standing conservative, with his unsavory marital history, has unyieldy baggage, allowing the moderate (aka, a conservative's liberal) a decided advantage. Even I, whom I would label as "conservative," would have difficulty pushing Newt over Mitt. I am delighted that the other two candidates have persisted in their efforts, and that some success has come of it all. I am against the candidate that too soon becomes a "media darling" or the expressed choice of the party's "powers-that-be." As a veteran of last year's Walker vs. Neumann primary, I hold especially any favored status promoted by the party (e.g. "electability") to be an insult to the voting populace. As a "Neumann backer," my friendly advice would forever be "find the man the party proposes, and vote for the other fellow." After all, I remain of the opinion that the man (or woman) I would back must hold to the fundamental positions I support.
Thus a field of four offers more hope for those who believe that the 2012 must field two candidates of varied political positions, the classic liberal vs. conservative showdown. Two moderates lacks a feel for entirety. The victory that Obama secured over John McCain four years prior could easily have been a mandate to elect the first African-American to demonstrate progress towards a noble goal. It could also easily be seen as the Republican Party's effort to offer a candidate that has qualities similar to the Obama juggernaut. But that smacked too much of a "me-too-ism" that was featured in the Kennedy-Nixon debates, a series of encounters that showed two candidates, one young and dynamic, one young and haggard, with similar positions. The aura of dynamism that Kennedy held was the edge in that election. My hope is to allow a real choice in this year's election. But to do this, any weight that a strawman argument such as "electability" has to be seen as the smokescreen that it is. The country should vote its conscience according to the issues that guide the nation, not political opportunism.
The general misgivings on Santorum and Paul has been the idea that they would not fare well in a theoretical showdown with the President at this time. Voters have been given the specter of some entity called "electability." This quality is presented as a sine qua non for candidacy. As these two have not done well in the early primaries, it has become a foregone conclusion that Paul or Santorum are not qualified to run. A campaign of two candidates would be more appealing than one with four, especially if the two definitely present something of a widened political spectrum, a moderate versus a conservative. Too many conservatives seem to be superfluous.
However, the argument could be expressed that the standing conservative, with his unsavory marital history, has unyieldy baggage, allowing the moderate (aka, a conservative's liberal) a decided advantage. Even I, whom I would label as "conservative," would have difficulty pushing Newt over Mitt. I am delighted that the other two candidates have persisted in their efforts, and that some success has come of it all. I am against the candidate that too soon becomes a "media darling" or the expressed choice of the party's "powers-that-be." As a veteran of last year's Walker vs. Neumann primary, I hold especially any favored status promoted by the party (e.g. "electability") to be an insult to the voting populace. As a "Neumann backer," my friendly advice would forever be "find the man the party proposes, and vote for the other fellow." After all, I remain of the opinion that the man (or woman) I would back must hold to the fundamental positions I support.
Thus a field of four offers more hope for those who believe that the 2012 must field two candidates of varied political positions, the classic liberal vs. conservative showdown. Two moderates lacks a feel for entirety. The victory that Obama secured over John McCain four years prior could easily have been a mandate to elect the first African-American to demonstrate progress towards a noble goal. It could also easily be seen as the Republican Party's effort to offer a candidate that has qualities similar to the Obama juggernaut. But that smacked too much of a "me-too-ism" that was featured in the Kennedy-Nixon debates, a series of encounters that showed two candidates, one young and dynamic, one young and haggard, with similar positions. The aura of dynamism that Kennedy held was the edge in that election. My hope is to allow a real choice in this year's election. But to do this, any weight that a strawman argument such as "electability" has to be seen as the smokescreen that it is. The country should vote its conscience according to the issues that guide the nation, not political opportunism.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Rob Bell, Hell, Thin Ice, and the "Scare 'Em" Strawman Fallacy
What prompted this line of thought was a recent news item that declared the ice on Lake Winnebago to be dreadfully thin at this season when the annual sturgeon run was at hand. The yearly ice-shanty villages that dot the northern edge of this sizable lake seem threatened. Those 100-200 lb. brutes of the depths seem to have been spared the fate of the spearer. Growing up living near this lake had been my fondest boyhood memories, including fishing its shorelines, swimming its beaches, skipping stones onto its surface, and walking the ice.
I have considered the work of the evangelical Rob Bell in his recent book Love Wins, and his rationale for dismissing the realms of eternal punishment. Hell, to Bell, seems inconsistent with the idea of a loving God, and even faced with the necessity of dealing with a perfectly just God, Hell would be overkill. To many who flinch at the concept of Hell, the notions of annihilation or a temporary stay in the Inferno are palatable options. The insistence on the reality of Hell is touted by some to be a loveless message, a strategy to hold people fear-bound in the pews or scare them into fellowship. It is in treating this misconception that I turn to this topic, and neatly try to explain what the first paragraph of this blog has to do with the second.
I stated that I grew up near Lake Winnebago, the proud resident of Neenah, Wisconsin. Check Google Earth to get the lay of this land. This wonder of a lake is 30 miles north to south, six miles at its widest stretch, and is remarkably shallow for its dimensions, 21 feet at best. Near my section of Lake Winnebago flows the Fox River south and north of Doty Island. For me, it was a trick to be walking on the ice near this confluence of river and lake. We had to be very wary in reading the ice. The whiter, the thicker. And never, ever go near sections of "black ice." It had "thin" written all over it. It had gotten to be a simple matter to determine how many inches of ice by viewing the particular shade of white, and we were quick to notice the graying of ice, an indication that warm weather was beginning to decay the ice. We noted the evenings when the winds were strengthening in the transitional months of February and March, and we marveled at the heights of the ice jams that forced themselves on the western shores of the lake, 15 to 20 feet high. Armed with that knowledge, it was rather safe for an ice savvy person to walk the ice. As a boy, I swung far away from the suspicious ice near the entrance of the Fox River at Kimberly Point to walk to Doty Island. Could one go through the ice on Winnebago? Certainly, but such a one would not have been able to read the ice at that moment.
So what does this have to do with the fear factor in dealing with Hell? Much. To a Texan or a Floridian, the idea of walking on areas where there may be thin ice may be a fearsome concept, but perhaps also an idea that would not simply cross the mind. To one uninfomed of walking on ice covered lakes, such people who do would appear to be terrible risk takers. Except to the knowledgeable, such walking has no risks. We become alert to the situations, and are safe. In the same way, Hell is a reality to the one who takes Scriptures seriously, but not much of one. Hell is a doctrine that the Bible teaches, and it should be taught. But not as a scare tactic or to prompt stable and increased membership in the Church. But as a truth with consequences, a fair warning, a lesson in walking the ice. A danger that is there, but not threatening to the initiate. To the Christian, Hell is for those who wish separation from God, a logical consequence for choosing poorly. But what type of fellow would choose poorly if s/he would acknowledge a better option? If we all worry about getting to Heaven, the simple answer is to find out how one gains access there.
Finding that answer may be the most pleasant one has in life. No one fears going through the ice if they are smart about it.
I have considered the work of the evangelical Rob Bell in his recent book Love Wins, and his rationale for dismissing the realms of eternal punishment. Hell, to Bell, seems inconsistent with the idea of a loving God, and even faced with the necessity of dealing with a perfectly just God, Hell would be overkill. To many who flinch at the concept of Hell, the notions of annihilation or a temporary stay in the Inferno are palatable options. The insistence on the reality of Hell is touted by some to be a loveless message, a strategy to hold people fear-bound in the pews or scare them into fellowship. It is in treating this misconception that I turn to this topic, and neatly try to explain what the first paragraph of this blog has to do with the second.
I stated that I grew up near Lake Winnebago, the proud resident of Neenah, Wisconsin. Check Google Earth to get the lay of this land. This wonder of a lake is 30 miles north to south, six miles at its widest stretch, and is remarkably shallow for its dimensions, 21 feet at best. Near my section of Lake Winnebago flows the Fox River south and north of Doty Island. For me, it was a trick to be walking on the ice near this confluence of river and lake. We had to be very wary in reading the ice. The whiter, the thicker. And never, ever go near sections of "black ice." It had "thin" written all over it. It had gotten to be a simple matter to determine how many inches of ice by viewing the particular shade of white, and we were quick to notice the graying of ice, an indication that warm weather was beginning to decay the ice. We noted the evenings when the winds were strengthening in the transitional months of February and March, and we marveled at the heights of the ice jams that forced themselves on the western shores of the lake, 15 to 20 feet high. Armed with that knowledge, it was rather safe for an ice savvy person to walk the ice. As a boy, I swung far away from the suspicious ice near the entrance of the Fox River at Kimberly Point to walk to Doty Island. Could one go through the ice on Winnebago? Certainly, but such a one would not have been able to read the ice at that moment.
So what does this have to do with the fear factor in dealing with Hell? Much. To a Texan or a Floridian, the idea of walking on areas where there may be thin ice may be a fearsome concept, but perhaps also an idea that would not simply cross the mind. To one uninfomed of walking on ice covered lakes, such people who do would appear to be terrible risk takers. Except to the knowledgeable, such walking has no risks. We become alert to the situations, and are safe. In the same way, Hell is a reality to the one who takes Scriptures seriously, but not much of one. Hell is a doctrine that the Bible teaches, and it should be taught. But not as a scare tactic or to prompt stable and increased membership in the Church. But as a truth with consequences, a fair warning, a lesson in walking the ice. A danger that is there, but not threatening to the initiate. To the Christian, Hell is for those who wish separation from God, a logical consequence for choosing poorly. But what type of fellow would choose poorly if s/he would acknowledge a better option? If we all worry about getting to Heaven, the simple answer is to find out how one gains access there.
Finding that answer may be the most pleasant one has in life. No one fears going through the ice if they are smart about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)