Friday, May 3, 2024
22 hours ago
Friday, December 11, 2009
Moving
For a variety of reasons I am moving my posts to http://israelshaw.wordpress.com/. Check me out there.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
A Great Resource
Technology is so powerful and avails so much to us today that it is hard to grasp its full potential and impact. Maybe a better place to start is to experience its value. BiblicalTraining.org is one such example of the great offerings available for free on the web. Do not pass this opportunity up.
The embedded lecture below is the introductory lecture from Dr. Bruce Ware for his Systematic Theology course. As one of my professors told me in seminary - the most important class offerred in seminary is not Greek I or Hebrew I or Introduction to Philosophy of Religion but it is Systematic Theology. Now one of the brightest minds in our country teaching it is available to all for free. Can't beat it! Enjoy.
The embedded lecture below is the introductory lecture from Dr. Bruce Ware for his Systematic Theology course. As one of my professors told me in seminary - the most important class offerred in seminary is not Greek I or Hebrew I or Introduction to Philosophy of Religion but it is Systematic Theology. Now one of the brightest minds in our country teaching it is available to all for free. Can't beat it! Enjoy.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Two Interesting Articles on Abortion
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
The Unwelcomed Fellow Traveller
An excerpt from C.S. Lewis’ The Horse and his Boy (chapter 11).
“Who are you?” he said, scarcely above a whisper.
“One who has waited long for you to speak,” said the Thing. Its voice was not loud, but very large and deep.
“Are you – are you a giant?” asked Shasta.
“You might call me a giant,” said the Large Voice. “But I am not like the creatures you call giants.”
“I can’t see you at all,” said Shasta, after staring very hard. Then (for an even more terrible idea had come into his head) he said, almost in a scream, “You’re not – not something dead, are you? Oh, please – please do go away. What harm have I ever done you? Oh, I am the unluckiest person in the whole world!”
Once more he felt the warm breath of the Thing on his hand and face. “There,” it said, “that is not the breath of a ghost. Tell me your sorrows.”
Shasta was a little reassured by the breath: so he told how he had never known his real father or mother and had been brought up sternly by the fisherman. And then he told the story of his escape and how they were chased by lions and forced to swim for their lives; and of all their dangers in Tashbaan and about his night among the tombs and how the beasts howled at him out of the desert. And he told about the heat and thirst of their desert journey and how they were almost at their goal when another lion chased them and wounded Aravis. And also, how very long it was since he had had anything to eat.
“I do not call you unfortunate,” said the Large Voice.
“Don’t you think it was bad luck to meet so many lions?” said Shasta.
“There was only one lion,” said the Voice.
“What on earth do you mean? I’ve just told you there were at least two the first night, and – “
“There was only one: but he was swift of foot.”
“How do you know?”
“I was the lion.” And as Shasta gaped with open mouth and said nothing, the Voice continued. “I was the lion who forced you to join with Aravis. I was the cat who comforted you among the houses of the dead. I was the lion who drove the jackals from you while you slept. I was the lion who gave the Horses the new strength of fear for the last mile so that you should reach King Lune in time. And I was the lion you do not remember who pushed the boat in which you lay, a child near death, so that it came to shore where a man sat, wakeful at midnight, to receive you.”
“Then it was you who wounded Aravis?”
“It was I.”
“But what for?”
“Child,” said the Voice, “I am telling you your story, not hers. I tell no one any story but his own.”
“Who are you?” asked Shasta.
“Myself,” said the voice, very deep and low so that the earth shook: and again, “Myself”, loud and clear and gay: and then the third time “Myself”, whispered so softly you could hardly hear it, and yet it seemed to come from all around you as if the leaves rustled with it.
“Who are you?” he said, scarcely above a whisper.
“One who has waited long for you to speak,” said the Thing. Its voice was not loud, but very large and deep.
“Are you – are you a giant?” asked Shasta.
“You might call me a giant,” said the Large Voice. “But I am not like the creatures you call giants.”
“I can’t see you at all,” said Shasta, after staring very hard. Then (for an even more terrible idea had come into his head) he said, almost in a scream, “You’re not – not something dead, are you? Oh, please – please do go away. What harm have I ever done you? Oh, I am the unluckiest person in the whole world!”
Once more he felt the warm breath of the Thing on his hand and face. “There,” it said, “that is not the breath of a ghost. Tell me your sorrows.”
Shasta was a little reassured by the breath: so he told how he had never known his real father or mother and had been brought up sternly by the fisherman. And then he told the story of his escape and how they were chased by lions and forced to swim for their lives; and of all their dangers in Tashbaan and about his night among the tombs and how the beasts howled at him out of the desert. And he told about the heat and thirst of their desert journey and how they were almost at their goal when another lion chased them and wounded Aravis. And also, how very long it was since he had had anything to eat.
“I do not call you unfortunate,” said the Large Voice.
“Don’t you think it was bad luck to meet so many lions?” said Shasta.
“There was only one lion,” said the Voice.
“What on earth do you mean? I’ve just told you there were at least two the first night, and – “
“There was only one: but he was swift of foot.”
“How do you know?”
“I was the lion.” And as Shasta gaped with open mouth and said nothing, the Voice continued. “I was the lion who forced you to join with Aravis. I was the cat who comforted you among the houses of the dead. I was the lion who drove the jackals from you while you slept. I was the lion who gave the Horses the new strength of fear for the last mile so that you should reach King Lune in time. And I was the lion you do not remember who pushed the boat in which you lay, a child near death, so that it came to shore where a man sat, wakeful at midnight, to receive you.”
“Then it was you who wounded Aravis?”
“It was I.”
“But what for?”
“Child,” said the Voice, “I am telling you your story, not hers. I tell no one any story but his own.”
“Who are you?” asked Shasta.
“Myself,” said the voice, very deep and low so that the earth shook: and again, “Myself”, loud and clear and gay: and then the third time “Myself”, whispered so softly you could hardly hear it, and yet it seemed to come from all around you as if the leaves rustled with it.
Friday, December 4, 2009
An Interesting Comparison: World's 2009 Daniel of the Year award and the 2009 Humanist of the Year award
Trying to figure out the ideologies warring for your acceptance? It is not too hard on some very basic levels. Read these two articles and consider the presuppositions that are present. Here is one specific question to ask: Is taking any position on the origination of life (be it either Intelligent Design or Evolution) evidence of someone's intelligence as the guiding principle in determining what they believe? I will give my opinion within a few weeks.
First, "2009 Daniel of the Year" Award, found in World's December 19, 2009 issue. Found here.
2009 Daniel of the Year
Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, fights to show that all lives have eternal value because they are the work of a Creator and not the product of chance
by Marvin Olasky
WORLD's 12th annual Daniel of the Year does not save lives abroad, as Britain's Caroline Cox and Sudan's Michael Yerko do. Nor does he regularly save lives of the unborn, as Florida's Wanda Cohn does through her pregnancy center work. No, Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, fights to show that those lives have eternal value because they are the work of a Creator and not the product of chance.
This fall Meyer came out with a full account of what science has learned in recent decades: Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (Harper One, 2009) shows that the cell is incredibly complex and the code that directs its functions wonderfully designed. His argument undercuts macroevolution, the theory that one kind of animal over time evolves into a very different kind. Meyer thus garners media scorn for raining on this year's huge celebration of the birth of Charles Darwin 200 years ago and the publication of On the Origin of Species 150 years ago.
Meyer's Seattle-area office is filled with books and papers, drawings of the interior of plants, and trilobite fossils—obviously evolved, a Darwinist would say. Hanging from the ceiling is an obviously created mobile that displays sets of eyes along with pictures of people from many cultures. That mobile, made by Meyer's teenage daughter, reminds him of the passage from 2 Chronicles 16 that notes how "the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to give strong support to those whose heart is blameless toward Him." Those with biblical faith in God see both fossils and the mobile as works of intelligence.
From his office Meyer has ventured forth to debate at least nine prominent Darwinians on CNN, NPR, FOX, the BBC, and other venues. In it he has written numerous newspaper and magazine columns in defense of Intelligent Design (ID), as well as an academic article that became notorious five years ago when Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian-affiliated scientist, agreed to publish it in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Darwinian higher-ups demoted Sternberg for allowing the other side to have its say. They interrogated him about religious and political beliefs.
ID proponents regularly receive that type of harassment: No lion's den, but denials of tenure and media depiction as anti-science. Ironically, scientific advance is now backing ID, which starts with the idea that—in Meyer's words—"certain technical features in a physical system reveal the activity of an intelligence or a mind. A simple example might be Mount Rushmore: You drive into the Dakotas and you see carvings of the presidents' faces up on the mountainside, and you immediately recognize that you're dealing with a sculpture, an intelligence, rather than an undirected process like wind and erosion."
Our new ability to peer into cells also shows ID: Meyer says, "We don't see little faces but we do see other indicators of intelligent activity, such as the digital code that's stored in a DNA molecule, or the tiny little miniature machines, the nanotechnology, the sliding clamps and turbines and rotary engines that biologists are now finding inside living cells." Darwin did not know any of that and Meyer, 51, did not always know it. His career shows the four-stage pattern that is common among intellectual Daniels: Questioning, discernment, courage, and perseverance.
Meyer's questioning stage came in the 1970s and 1980s. He grew up nominally Catholic—he, his wife, and their three children now attend Covenant Presbyterian in the Seattle area—and as a teenager "had a long and tortuous conversion experience. I was constantly asking myself questions and over-thinking things. In my junior year in high school I vowed that I would not think about Christianity for two whole weeks and I broke the vow within a day. I probably was already a Christian but I had so many questions and I wasn't sure."
At Whitworth College in Spokane, Professor Norman Krebs introduced Meyer to books by Francis Schaeffer that helped him answer theological questions and also led him to a philosophy of science: "I was very taken with Schaeffer's argument from epistemology that the foundation of the scientific enterprise itself rested on certain assumptions that only made sense within a theistic worldview, in particular, assumptions about the reliability of the human mind."
Meyer after graduation kept thinking about "the big questions" and "was first inclined to accept the evolutionary explanation of things mainly because all of my college science professors did." While working as a geophysicist in Texas, he dropped in on a conference concerning the origin of the universe and of life: "Nearly all the panelists acknowledged that there was no materialistic, evolutionary explanation for the origin of the first life . . . the veneer of objectivity in the discussion broke down and some of the scientists started scolding and lecturing this other scientist about his giving up on science. . . . It got really personal and kind of ugly."
Non-questioning minds would have steered clear of what looked like trouble. Meyer's reaction: "I want to know more about this debate"—so he accepted a fellowship that allowed him to study at the 800-year-old University of Cambridge, which includes among its alumni Isaac Newton, Darwin himself, and 85 Nobel Prize winners.
The question that occupied Meyer at Cambridge was, "Could this intuition of a connection between information and intelligence be developed into a rigorous scientific argument?" He "began to study the scientists who had developed a scientific method for studying biological origins. That led me, obviously, to Darwin, and from Darwin to his mentor, the famous 19th-century geologist Charles Lyell, who had pioneered the method of studying events and causes in the remote past. . . . Lyell had a way of distilling this principle of reasoning: He said we should be looking for presently acting causes, or as he put it, 'causes now in operation.'"
Meyer recalls the beginning of his discernment stage: "When I saw that phrase, 'causes now in operation,' the light went on, because I thought, 'What is the cause now in operation that's responsible for the creation of digital code, of alphabetical information in a digital form?' There's only one: intelligence. So I realized that by using Darwin and Lyell's principle of reasoning, you could make a compelling scientific case for Intelligent Design." That type of evidence assessment is different from the standard scientific method emphasis on laboratory analysis and experimentation, but it's what historians use in looking at singular past events and inferring their causes from evidence left behind.
When Meyer completed his dissertation, "Of Clues and Causes: A Methodological Interpretation of Origin of Life Studies," the University of Cambridge in 1991 awarded him its prestigious Ph.D. Meyer, having proceeded through questioning and discernment stages, had to decide whether to enter the courage stage. Everyone knows that microevolution—change within species—occurs, but the critical issue is whether the descendants of dinosaurs become birds through natural selection. Denying macroevolution leaves scientists unprotected even at some Christian colleges.
Meyer says, "You ask how someone gets the moxie to take something like this on. Part of the answer is that I didn't know any better when I was young. I was just so seized with this idea and these questions: 'Was it possible to develop a scientific case? Were we looking at evidence that could revive and resuscitate the classical argument from design, which had been understood from the time of Hume and certainly the time of Darwin to be defunct?' If that was the case, that's a major scientific revolution."
Courage becomes a determinant once we count the cost and see that it's great. Meyer's first inkling came when "talking about my ideas to people at Cambridge High Table settings, and getting that sudden social pall." But the cost was and is more than conversational ease: San Francisco State University in 1992 expelled a professor, Dean Kenyon, who espoused ID, and other job losses have come since. Meyer and other ID proponents saw "that this would be very controversial. One of the things that emboldened all of us who were in the early days of this movement was meeting each other. In 1993 we had a little private conference [with] 10 or 12 very sharp, mostly younger scientists going through top-of-the-world programs in their respective fields who were all skeptical. I think the congealing of this group gave everyone the sense that this was going to be an exciting adventure: Let's rumble."
Meyer taught from 1990 to 2002 at his alma mater, Whitworth. Then he and his family moved to Seattle and full-time work at the Center for Science and Culture, which he had planted in 1996 following "an electric conversation" with famed free market economics writer George Gilder, a Discovery Institute leader. Gilder understands that the creative ingenuity of the human mind, and not material stuff by itself, leads to wealth creation. Similarly, biological functions arise from information in DNA, which points to a designing mind. Our computer age knowledge of the role of information technology helps us to grasp what Darwin did not: That matter does not matter unless someone or Someone precisely arranges it.
Many who enter the courage stage at first think that the war in which they find themselves will end in a few years. There comes a time in many lives, though, when a hard realization sinks in: It will not be over in my lifetime. That's when some give in while others proceed to the perseverance stage. That's where Meyer is: Signature in the Cell ends with a long list of testable predictions concerning the direction of science over the next several decades. Meyer predicts that further study will reveal the importance of "junk DNA" and the reasons for what seem to be "poorly designed" structures: They will reveal either a hidden functional logic or evidence of decay from originally good designs.
Life for ID Daniels may even grow harder as some Darwinists realize that time is not on their side. As ultrasound machines have undercut abortion, so information revolutions have led more scientists to embrace ID. As Meyer says, "When we encounter a computer program we can always trace it back to a computer programmer. . . . So the discovery of information in DNA points decisively back to an intelligent cause, to a mind, not a material process."
That discovery undermines the current Darwinian empire, which is and will be striking back. Meyer's wife Elaine occasionally asks him, "Is it too late for us to still be farmers?" It looks that way: Meyer is way past the point of no return for a placid academic life. And today's Daniels hang in there, as their predecessor two-and-a-half millennia ago did.
Going against the stereotype: Owen Gingerich and other Christian critics of ID
by Marvin Olasky
This year atheistic biologist Richard Dawkins refused my offer to schedule a debate in New York between Meyer and himself: Dawkins, who says that Darwinism makes for "intellectually fulfilled atheism," apparently does not want to lose his sense of fulfillment. But theistic evolutionist Francis Collins also attacks ID and is unwilling to enter into a public discussion with Meyer.
Some thoughtful evangelical professors believe the Bible allows for one kind of creature to become another by chance over time. Others compartmentalize: To use Francis Schaeffer's parlance, they put God in the "upper story" for devotional visits but macroevolution in the lower story where it rules their daily work. Some Christians in academia sat at the feet of materialist professors and have never transcended their graduate school training. Some evangelical professors have enough status anxiety already without suffering further indignity by being called anti-scientific.
Socrates in the City, the Christian gathering in Manhattan hosted by Eric Metaxas (see "Mission to Metropolis," Feb. 14), has witnessed attacks on ID by Collins and, last month, by Harvard professor emeritus Owen Gingerich, author of God's Universe (2006). Gingerich noted that today "even high school students study a great deal more about genetics than Darwin ever knew." He said he supports "lower case intelligent design" but opposes ID: He acknowledged that God created the universe but said such a consideration has no place in scientific discourse.
Gingerich takes that position because he defines science as "methodological naturalism": Anything supernatural cannot be part of science, so by definition ID has no place in scientific journals. I asked him why science should be equated only with naturalism: Why can't science be an attempt to find the most likely reasons why reality is as it is? In writing history books I haven't pretended to know exactly why certain events happened, but I've reported likely causes. In looking at the history of the development of life, can't we also assess likelihoods?
Gingerich is not willing to go that far, but Meyer is. He notes the importance of "generating a list of possible hypotheses" and then "progressively eliminating potential but inadequate explanations." In Signature in the Cell Meyer notes "the inability of genetic algorithms, ribozyme engineering, and prebiotic simulations to generate information without intelligence." Since the possibility of undirected materialistic causes producing life in its profusion is virtually nil, and since "conscious, rational intelligent agency . . . now stands as the only cause known to be capable of generating large amounts of specified information starting from a nonliving state," ID is by far the most plausible explanation.
Can science accept the concept of an intelligence beyond nature directing nature? If not, should the definition of science change?
Going against the party line: David Berlinski: A non-Christian ally of ID
by Marvin Olasky
The existence of David Berlinski is a problem for Darwinists who attempt to stigmatize critics by labeling all of them as religious creationists. The 67-year-old secular Jew and agnostic was born to Jewish-German refugees from Nazi Germany who fled to New York City. As a child he experimentally stuck a fork in an electric outlet. He has since shocked students through his teaching at Stanford, Rutgers, and at least eight other colleges and universities. He received his Ph.D. at Princeton University and has written curmudgeonly books such as The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions and Deniable Darwin and Other Essays.
Berlinski, proceeding from a scientific rather than a Christian viewpoint, sees "big holes in Darwinism. It's inadequate as a theory, and I feel very sympathetic, very warm, towards Intelligent Design." He also sympathizes with ID Daniels: "The academic world does not reward any kind of dissent . . . if you dissent from Darwin in any way, the suspicion immediately arises that you're going to be handling snakes next. The hostility toward the American evangelical community in particular and the Christian community in general (the Jewish community plays almost no role in this) is very powerful."
Perhaps because he cannot be typed as "some sort of religious nitwit," secular critics of Darwin sometimes confide in Berlinski: "There is a lot of dissent out there that is unexpressed. When I talk to mathematicians they say, 'We knew this stuff all along but we're not going to open our mouths.' When I talk to biologists, some of the good ones say very candidly, 'Darwin? That's just the party line.'"
Concerning Stephen Meyer's view that Darwin's theory will lose support as we gain more scientific knowledge, Berlinski says, "I think he's completely right. Either the gaps in Darwin's theory will shrink or they will expand, and I think the second is much more likely both in biology and physics." He adds, "We have to maintain a completely open mind, and I see no reason that the insights of Christian theology, Jewish theology, and Islamic theology should be ruled out of court at the very beginning because they're incompatible with a certain idea of what science is really about."
Flossing a lion: Darwin’s Origin gets a stealthy evangelistic introduction
by Alisa Harris
Richard Dawkins is suggesting that students rip out part of the latest edition of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species—the Christian introduction challenging Darwin's theories.
Frustrated that students are getting a "lopsided view of their origins," author and evangelist Ray Comfort realized that On the Origin of Species was in the public domain, which meant he could publish his own edition with his own introduction and distribute it across college and university campuses. He wrote a 54-page introduction challenging Darwin's views and with the help of evangelism organization Living Waters, recruited 1,200 volunteers to distribute 170,000 books at 100 universities.
The introduction starts with Darwin's biography and goes on to talk about the evidence against evolution: DNA as a sophisticated language that could not evolve by chance, the lack of transitional fossil forms, and the "irreducible complexity" of the human body. Comfort also argues that Darwin held racist and sexist views, and he traces Hitler's racism back to Darwin.
Because of Dawkins' suggestion and other talk of book burnings and protests, Living Waters decided to move up the date of distribution—from publicly announced Nov. 19 to Nov. 18. Comfort said a UCLA student protester told him, "You're not supposed to be here today. We're not ready."
Tristan Miller, the president of Bruin Alliance of Skeptics and Secularists at UCLA, said his group planned to hand out counter-fliers, pro-evolution materials, and free T-shirts. As for book burnings, "We would never do anything of the sort," he said. From Miller's perspective, the event was more about evangelism than science.
Comfort doesn't hide his evangelistic purpose, especially since the end of the introduction includes the gospel story and an invitation to accept Christianity. His goal is not only to turn people from evolution but also to bring them to Christianity, he said.
Living Waters will continue to print and distribute its edition across college campuses, but the when and where is secret, Comfort said: "Atheists will be trying to find out what universities we're going to visit and when we're going to visit them, but they have more chance of flossing the teeth of a lion at the L.A. zoo at feeding time than they have of getting that information."
Copyright © 2009 WORLD Magazine
Second, "The Humanist of the Year Award" found here.
Comes a Horseman
By PZ Myers
Published in the November/December 2009 Humanist
PZ Myers is a University of Minnesota biology professor who specializes in evolutionary developmental biology. He is also the author of the widely read and acclaimed science blog Pharyngula, which resides at Seed magazine's science blogs site. As a vocal atheist and skeptic of all forms of religion, superstition, and pseudoscience, Myers was a founding member of the pro-evolution website The Panda's Thumb and has long been a leading critic of creationism and intelligent design. Myers was honored as the 2009 Humanist of the Year by the American Humanist Association at its 68th annual conference in Tempe, Arizona. Introducing Myers at the June 6 award ceremony, Humanist editor Jennifer Bardi shared two stories demonstrating that, "while PZ Myers is a scientist, an educator, and a writer foremost, don't put it past him to pull a stunt or two that have sharp critical teeth." The first, about Myers being deceived into appearing in the anti-evolution film Expelled, ended with Myers being barred from the screening (while his guest Richard Dawkins gained entry) and heading directly to the nearest Apple store to blog about the fiasco. The second involved Myers' "Great Desecration" of a Eucharist wafer in response to an incident in which a University of Central Florida student received death threats and condemnation from conservatives nationwide when he stole a communion wafer to protest student fees being used toward religious services at the school.
The following is adapted from Myers' speech in acceptance of the Humanist of the Year award.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS GREAT HONOR. I also thank you for that very nice introduction. It was a little bit humbling because it brings to mind a great quote from Monty Python's Life of Brian that really puts a proper perspective on what I am. And the quote is from Brian's mother who says, "He's not the Messiah! He's just a very naughty boy." Not that I ever considered myself any kind of Messiah, of course, but yes, a naughty boy. I think a little naughtiness goes a long way and so it's a fair cop.
I do like to think that there's a bit more to it, though. And so what I'd like to do is tell you where I'm coming from, where I see myself, why I think the way I do, and a little bit about where you all come in.
Surely you've heard of the four horsemen. I'm not talking about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse from the book of Revelation; I'm talking about Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, popularized as the four horsemen of the New Atheism. They are all widely read authors of popular books who have been largely responsible, I think, for vaulting atheism into the public consciousness in the last few years. It's a slightly unfortunate analogy though, and I don't quite know why they're running with it. One problem, of course, lies in matching up identities. I can sort of see Hitchens as War but the other three are going to have to divvy up Pestilence, Famine, and Death. And this is probably not the best image we want to get across about humanism and atheism.
Another problem with the Four Horsemen analogy is the number. As we all know, there are quite a few more vocal people who have been active in atheism and humanism and secularism in general than just the four. What about Victor Stenger or Pascal Boyer? Richard Carrier, Julia Sweeney, Dan Barker? Don't they get horses? And what about me? You know, I'm as atheist as those others and I'm probably "atheier" than some of them. (Although I do have to admit I haven't written a book yet. I'm on sabbatical this year to finish my book, so maybe I'll get a horse after all.)
So I'm going to very prematurely declare myself a fifth horseman. I picture myself, though, as a little guy on a very small pony trotting after the other four. However, I'm waving a great big banner that has the words, "The Internet" on it. That's me. And I think it's important because, sure, John of Patmos (who wrote the book of Revelation) personifies War, Pestilence, Famine, and Death but I don't think any apocalypse is complete without the Internet in there somewhere, and so I have to fill that vital role. (If you don't believe me, try reading the comments on YouTube sometime. You'll figure the end really is near.)
So how does a professor at a small liberal arts university in the middle of nowhere get 2.5 million hits on his website every month? I really have to credit the topics—namely science and atheism—that are a large part of what I discuss there. I'm one of those people who intertwine the two and tangle them up, which has turned out to be extremely popular. So I can't take full credit; I've just happened to hit on a particular nerve in the culture right now.
And speaking of science and atheism, I agree completely with Richard Dawkins' statement that evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. But I also go a step further and say that a proper appreciation of the nature of the universe directly demolishes the pre-scientific conceptions of an active interventionist God. If you understand the science, you ought to be an atheist. Of course, humans are complicated and very contrary creatures who are really good at clinging to comforting beliefs in the face of the evidence, so the strongest word I can use there is "ought"—ought to be atheists. We can't simply say that scientists are atheists because there are those who aren't. There was a time when I myself had no problem reconciling or, I think more accurately, partitioning scientific and religious beliefs. But I was eleven years old, and I grew up.
When I was a little kid I was a major nerd. (I know—you can't believe this, right?) I had all the major afflictions. I memorized dinosaurs—all the Latin names, geological eras, the distributions, the names of the bones, the whole shebang. Like a lot of little kids I was really engrossed with that. I may have gone a little farther than most in that I dissected road kill for fun and my mother would sometimes get upset because when she was cooking I would collect chicken hearts and run them down to the basement with batteries and do unholy experiments on them. And it wasn't just biology. I was also really into the space program. I was born the year Sputnik was launched and grew up during the glory days of NASA. I built model rockets and had model airplanes hanging all over the ceiling of my bedroom. You would have looked at me then and thought, "This kid is going to be a virgin forever." Okay, a real nerd.
But here is something that sometimes surprises people. I went to church regularly. I wasn't one of these born-again zealots; I was just a kid. But the truth be told, I actually liked church. Maybe the sermons were a little boring for an eleven-year-old but these were friendly folks. Unlike some, I never experienced repressive horrors or abuse, nothing but a positive, wholesome interaction with people who were happy to be members of this quiet little Lutheran community. Good people all around. It also wasn't a fire-and-brimstone church. Hell was almost never mentioned. I went to Sunday school and I went to church and I was in the choir. I was an altar boy (oh, boy). My mother even has blackmail material which she calls photographs to prove it.
So there I am, a conventional little nerd; I'm mostly well-adjusted and normal. And like most people I'm looking at the world through two lenses. There was my left brain that was reaching out analytically and thinking about dinosaurs and about microscopes and about rocket ships and all those nifty science-y things. And then there was this right brain that was all hymns and Bible stories. And all was well until, of course, the two combined. As we have known from the movies, never cross the streams because that is bad. That is very, very bad.
Well, there is a scapegoat here. NASA crossed my streams and that is what I'm here to tell you. NASA is responsible for me being an atheist.
You see, when I was a boy we had the traditional Lutheran Christmas. We would go to church on Christmas Eve and then get together at my grandparents' house for a Scandinavian dinner. There would, of course, be things like the American turkey but we would also have lefse (a traditional soft Norwegian flatbread) and lutefisk. (I do not have fond memories of fish jelly soaked in lye, ok? That was just part of the cultural baggage that came along with me.) My great-grandfather would recite the Lord's Prayer in Norwegian for us. And afterwards I, being the oldest kid would sit down with the whole family and show off my literacy by reading from the Bible. I would read the story of Jesus' birth from the book of Luke. And this was our Christmas every year. It was great. I have absolutely no complaints—well, except for the lutefisk.
But one Christmas was special. I raced through that Bible reading because there was something on TV I had to watch that night. Some of you of a certain age may remember this—Christmas Eve, December 24, 1968. Yes, Apollo 8 was in orbit around the moon and they were going to broadcast from lunar orbit. So here I am, my right brain is fully engaged in all this ritual and fun stuff of the Christmas celebration and my left brain is just kind of throbbing with anticipation. Oh boy, I'm really into this rocket-ship stuff, and now I'm going to watch it on TV. Finally we turn on the television and there it is. Again, those of you who remember this remember the stunning Earthrise image they showed of this big, blue globe of the Earth rising over the horizon of the moon. It was spectacular right there on television. And I'm just sitting there in absolute awe. And then one of the astronauts, William Anders, speaks and these were his first words, "For all the people on Earth, the crew of Apollo 8 has a message we would like to send to you."
At this point I'm on the edge of my seat. If you've seen the movie A Christmas Story you may remember the part where Ralphie Parker receives the Little Orphan Annie secret decoder ring. He rushes into the bathroom and locks the door in this frenzy of excitement as he scrambles to decode his first message from the Ovaltine radio hour. This was me at the point Anders begins to speak. I just know he's going to say something really marvelous.
Of course, Anders goes on and the analogy of the movie becomes just perfect. If you remember the movie, the message was something like, "drink your Ovaltine." Anders goes on and what does he say? He says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."
Whoa, wait a minute! I thought. Then the other astronauts, Jim Lovell and Frank Borman, continued. They read a big chunk of the first chapter of the book of Genesis. And seriously, it was just like getting a commercial for Ovaltine. It was like opening that big present under the Christmas tree and discovering that it was a big, new pair of wooly underwear—an utter disappointment.
Now, my family seemed to think this was all very nice. And I think in general the public response in this country was positive to what it deemed a nice, affirmative message. The Christian moderates just ate it up. But I had been expecting something true and something deep. I wanted to know about the moon. Here we sent these astronauts there, and I wanted to know, what does it look like? Where did the moon come from? What do you see when you are up there? I wanted awe and I wanted wonder and I wanted truth. I wanted science and I wanted knowledge. And what did I get? I got drivel.
Okay, I know, a lot of people think Genesis is great poetry and lovely metaphor and I say go ahead and think that. It's fine. Lots of people really like the language of the Bible and I can't blame them. But you see, at that moment, I saw it side by side with this awesome reality and it suffered. It was trivial and tawdry against this lunar horizon, against this globe of the Earth, against this black, star-spattered sky and aboard this incredible feat of human engineering. And here they were, resurrecting 5,000-year-old myths. And that was what they thought we wanted to hear.
Now, I can't pretend that in that instant I had an epiphany and became an atheist. I did not. What I felt was discomfort, like I was missing something. It took several more years of gradual intellectual disaffection from the church before I actually left. But I can say that in that moment in 1968, which I still remember so vividly, the first seed of doubt was planted and I saw religion for what it was—a flawed and limited human interpretation, crudely plastered over the grandeur of reality. And it got worse. Much, much worse.
I did not become an astronaut. Instead, I fell in love with biology, which to me is far more complicated and much more interesting than space. And what particularly engrossed me was evolution and development. These are the study of dynamics of change over long and short periods of time. It is what I have spent my whole life now studying. And guess what, Genesis is still haunting me. It's still after me, because in this country many people think the book of Genesis is a serious alternative to biology.
Take the creation story, which, it turns out, is really easy to find in the Bible; it's in book one; chapter one; page one. How convenient. (This is a major advantage to creationists, by the way, since you don't really need any higher math skills or even the ability to count to find this text. I'm actually sure we'd be living in a much happier world if whoever wrote this book had decided to put this story on page seventeen because knowing people's attention spans, they'd never find it and they wouldn't be pestering us with it.) But, anyway, I can summarize it very briefly. God snaps his fingers six times and creates these gigantic, broad categories of nature in a single day. Each announces that they are good and God takes a break on day seven. That is really the whole content of chapter one.
It's not very satisfying. There is nothing in the way of explanation about how God does it and the order of creation is just plain weird. It doesn't match up with anything science tells us about the order of things appearing. There is no evidence. There is no experiment. There is no observation. He doesn't even cite a source, right? And there is absolutely no detail. I mean, look at day five. That's when God creates whales and birds, kind of lumping those two together, and then apparently waves his hand over all this other stuff that appears in the oceans which is not named. It doesn't even mention squid. Nowhere does the creation story mention squid. And I mean, really, if I were the creator and the universe was initially nothing but water as it says in verse two of Genesis, I would have created cephalopods on day one. And then I would have taken six days off.
Anyway, chapter one of the book of Genesis is a page-and-a-quarter long; it's flimsy. Unfortunately, what happens is that creationists read this one page and they set this against, say, my four years of undergraduate biology, my five years of graduate research, my six years of post-doctoral study, the sixteen years after that spent as a science professional, and they also put it against all the scientific literature. They place this page in the great balance of their minds, right? They put this in one pan and on the other side is all of reality—the universe, the cosmos, everything, right there on the other side, and they weigh them.
I have pointed out the triviality of this far-too-influential page of the book before and I often rip it out. I've had people sputter at me in horror or gasp, "This is a great literature! This is a wonderfully human attempt to understand the world and it is revered by millions of people and you have just belittled it." And I have to say yes. Yes, it probably should be considered great literature, but so what? What I'm saying is that as a way to understand the world, it's a flop. It's an attempt to impose a limited vision of reality on us and it has to be appreciated appropriately. This is not a science book. Even the theologians will tell us this. (Ask Barry Lynn—he'll tell you this isn't a science book.) It isn't even a Little Orphan Annie secret decoder ring. It is one page among the billions written by human beings trying to explain the world. And it's actually weaker than most.
And this is why I oppose religion. It's not because it kills people, although it does. It's not because it poisons everything, although it does. It's not because it is nothing but a philosophical construct even though that's all it is, and I actually kind of like philosophical constructs. Even moderate religion is an exercise in obscurantism, the elevation of feel-good fluff over substance. I oppose it because it is a barrier to understanding, a kind of simplistic facade thrown up to veil knowledge with a pretense of scholarliness. It's an imaginary shortcut that leads people astray, guaranteeing that they never see the real glory of a cell or of the stars. And I honestly hope that once people see the creation story for what little it is—one thin sheet of tissue paper—they will be able to crumple it up and toss it aside.
I'm not saying we should all run out and burn Bibles. Keep them. Appreciate them as books that have shaped history. There are some good parts and some bad parts that are relics of ancient days and they even contain cultural touchstones that teach us something about ourselves. But appreciate it for what it is, not for what it's not. It's not a magic recipe book that describes anything much beyond some narrow but influential tribal mythology, this tiny little slice of skewed history. I began with the mention of the Four Horsemen. As you might have guessed by now, I'm an atheist. And as you probably already knew, that was a biblical reference. We throw out biblical references all the time; it permeates the culture. My middle son was an English major and he once cussed me out because he said I never introduced him to the Bible and here he was reading Shakespeare. You can't make sense of Shakespeare without knowing something about what's in the Bible. You have to understand something about this horrible, awful, wonderful, puzzling, appalling, amazing, terrible little book in order to know what people like Dawkins and Dennett and Harris and Hitchens are talking about, and appreciate the irony and humor of the fact that the most prominent atheists in the world are referring to themselves as biblical scourges. We would be poorer for it if we did not have a grasp of this source text that permeates our culture.
So let me close with one more Bible quote that will answer a question I raised at the very beginning, which was, why only four horsemen? Revelation 9:16 is very useful. It says, "The number of the army of the horsemen was two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them." You heard it, the horsemen need two hundred million riders. So my final message is this: humanists, mount up.
PZ Myers, PhD, is an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris, author of the blog Pharyngula, and the 2009 Humanist of the Year.
First, "2009 Daniel of the Year" Award, found in World's December 19, 2009 issue. Found here.
2009 Daniel of the Year
Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, fights to show that all lives have eternal value because they are the work of a Creator and not the product of chance
by Marvin Olasky
WORLD's 12th annual Daniel of the Year does not save lives abroad, as Britain's Caroline Cox and Sudan's Michael Yerko do. Nor does he regularly save lives of the unborn, as Florida's Wanda Cohn does through her pregnancy center work. No, Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, fights to show that those lives have eternal value because they are the work of a Creator and not the product of chance.
This fall Meyer came out with a full account of what science has learned in recent decades: Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (Harper One, 2009) shows that the cell is incredibly complex and the code that directs its functions wonderfully designed. His argument undercuts macroevolution, the theory that one kind of animal over time evolves into a very different kind. Meyer thus garners media scorn for raining on this year's huge celebration of the birth of Charles Darwin 200 years ago and the publication of On the Origin of Species 150 years ago.
Meyer's Seattle-area office is filled with books and papers, drawings of the interior of plants, and trilobite fossils—obviously evolved, a Darwinist would say. Hanging from the ceiling is an obviously created mobile that displays sets of eyes along with pictures of people from many cultures. That mobile, made by Meyer's teenage daughter, reminds him of the passage from 2 Chronicles 16 that notes how "the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to give strong support to those whose heart is blameless toward Him." Those with biblical faith in God see both fossils and the mobile as works of intelligence.
From his office Meyer has ventured forth to debate at least nine prominent Darwinians on CNN, NPR, FOX, the BBC, and other venues. In it he has written numerous newspaper and magazine columns in defense of Intelligent Design (ID), as well as an academic article that became notorious five years ago when Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian-affiliated scientist, agreed to publish it in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Darwinian higher-ups demoted Sternberg for allowing the other side to have its say. They interrogated him about religious and political beliefs.
ID proponents regularly receive that type of harassment: No lion's den, but denials of tenure and media depiction as anti-science. Ironically, scientific advance is now backing ID, which starts with the idea that—in Meyer's words—"certain technical features in a physical system reveal the activity of an intelligence or a mind. A simple example might be Mount Rushmore: You drive into the Dakotas and you see carvings of the presidents' faces up on the mountainside, and you immediately recognize that you're dealing with a sculpture, an intelligence, rather than an undirected process like wind and erosion."
Our new ability to peer into cells also shows ID: Meyer says, "We don't see little faces but we do see other indicators of intelligent activity, such as the digital code that's stored in a DNA molecule, or the tiny little miniature machines, the nanotechnology, the sliding clamps and turbines and rotary engines that biologists are now finding inside living cells." Darwin did not know any of that and Meyer, 51, did not always know it. His career shows the four-stage pattern that is common among intellectual Daniels: Questioning, discernment, courage, and perseverance.
Meyer's questioning stage came in the 1970s and 1980s. He grew up nominally Catholic—he, his wife, and their three children now attend Covenant Presbyterian in the Seattle area—and as a teenager "had a long and tortuous conversion experience. I was constantly asking myself questions and over-thinking things. In my junior year in high school I vowed that I would not think about Christianity for two whole weeks and I broke the vow within a day. I probably was already a Christian but I had so many questions and I wasn't sure."
At Whitworth College in Spokane, Professor Norman Krebs introduced Meyer to books by Francis Schaeffer that helped him answer theological questions and also led him to a philosophy of science: "I was very taken with Schaeffer's argument from epistemology that the foundation of the scientific enterprise itself rested on certain assumptions that only made sense within a theistic worldview, in particular, assumptions about the reliability of the human mind."
Meyer after graduation kept thinking about "the big questions" and "was first inclined to accept the evolutionary explanation of things mainly because all of my college science professors did." While working as a geophysicist in Texas, he dropped in on a conference concerning the origin of the universe and of life: "Nearly all the panelists acknowledged that there was no materialistic, evolutionary explanation for the origin of the first life . . . the veneer of objectivity in the discussion broke down and some of the scientists started scolding and lecturing this other scientist about his giving up on science. . . . It got really personal and kind of ugly."
Non-questioning minds would have steered clear of what looked like trouble. Meyer's reaction: "I want to know more about this debate"—so he accepted a fellowship that allowed him to study at the 800-year-old University of Cambridge, which includes among its alumni Isaac Newton, Darwin himself, and 85 Nobel Prize winners.
The question that occupied Meyer at Cambridge was, "Could this intuition of a connection between information and intelligence be developed into a rigorous scientific argument?" He "began to study the scientists who had developed a scientific method for studying biological origins. That led me, obviously, to Darwin, and from Darwin to his mentor, the famous 19th-century geologist Charles Lyell, who had pioneered the method of studying events and causes in the remote past. . . . Lyell had a way of distilling this principle of reasoning: He said we should be looking for presently acting causes, or as he put it, 'causes now in operation.'"
Meyer recalls the beginning of his discernment stage: "When I saw that phrase, 'causes now in operation,' the light went on, because I thought, 'What is the cause now in operation that's responsible for the creation of digital code, of alphabetical information in a digital form?' There's only one: intelligence. So I realized that by using Darwin and Lyell's principle of reasoning, you could make a compelling scientific case for Intelligent Design." That type of evidence assessment is different from the standard scientific method emphasis on laboratory analysis and experimentation, but it's what historians use in looking at singular past events and inferring their causes from evidence left behind.
When Meyer completed his dissertation, "Of Clues and Causes: A Methodological Interpretation of Origin of Life Studies," the University of Cambridge in 1991 awarded him its prestigious Ph.D. Meyer, having proceeded through questioning and discernment stages, had to decide whether to enter the courage stage. Everyone knows that microevolution—change within species—occurs, but the critical issue is whether the descendants of dinosaurs become birds through natural selection. Denying macroevolution leaves scientists unprotected even at some Christian colleges.
Meyer says, "You ask how someone gets the moxie to take something like this on. Part of the answer is that I didn't know any better when I was young. I was just so seized with this idea and these questions: 'Was it possible to develop a scientific case? Were we looking at evidence that could revive and resuscitate the classical argument from design, which had been understood from the time of Hume and certainly the time of Darwin to be defunct?' If that was the case, that's a major scientific revolution."
Courage becomes a determinant once we count the cost and see that it's great. Meyer's first inkling came when "talking about my ideas to people at Cambridge High Table settings, and getting that sudden social pall." But the cost was and is more than conversational ease: San Francisco State University in 1992 expelled a professor, Dean Kenyon, who espoused ID, and other job losses have come since. Meyer and other ID proponents saw "that this would be very controversial. One of the things that emboldened all of us who were in the early days of this movement was meeting each other. In 1993 we had a little private conference [with] 10 or 12 very sharp, mostly younger scientists going through top-of-the-world programs in their respective fields who were all skeptical. I think the congealing of this group gave everyone the sense that this was going to be an exciting adventure: Let's rumble."
Meyer taught from 1990 to 2002 at his alma mater, Whitworth. Then he and his family moved to Seattle and full-time work at the Center for Science and Culture, which he had planted in 1996 following "an electric conversation" with famed free market economics writer George Gilder, a Discovery Institute leader. Gilder understands that the creative ingenuity of the human mind, and not material stuff by itself, leads to wealth creation. Similarly, biological functions arise from information in DNA, which points to a designing mind. Our computer age knowledge of the role of information technology helps us to grasp what Darwin did not: That matter does not matter unless someone or Someone precisely arranges it.
Many who enter the courage stage at first think that the war in which they find themselves will end in a few years. There comes a time in many lives, though, when a hard realization sinks in: It will not be over in my lifetime. That's when some give in while others proceed to the perseverance stage. That's where Meyer is: Signature in the Cell ends with a long list of testable predictions concerning the direction of science over the next several decades. Meyer predicts that further study will reveal the importance of "junk DNA" and the reasons for what seem to be "poorly designed" structures: They will reveal either a hidden functional logic or evidence of decay from originally good designs.
Life for ID Daniels may even grow harder as some Darwinists realize that time is not on their side. As ultrasound machines have undercut abortion, so information revolutions have led more scientists to embrace ID. As Meyer says, "When we encounter a computer program we can always trace it back to a computer programmer. . . . So the discovery of information in DNA points decisively back to an intelligent cause, to a mind, not a material process."
That discovery undermines the current Darwinian empire, which is and will be striking back. Meyer's wife Elaine occasionally asks him, "Is it too late for us to still be farmers?" It looks that way: Meyer is way past the point of no return for a placid academic life. And today's Daniels hang in there, as their predecessor two-and-a-half millennia ago did.
Going against the stereotype: Owen Gingerich and other Christian critics of ID
by Marvin Olasky
This year atheistic biologist Richard Dawkins refused my offer to schedule a debate in New York between Meyer and himself: Dawkins, who says that Darwinism makes for "intellectually fulfilled atheism," apparently does not want to lose his sense of fulfillment. But theistic evolutionist Francis Collins also attacks ID and is unwilling to enter into a public discussion with Meyer.
Some thoughtful evangelical professors believe the Bible allows for one kind of creature to become another by chance over time. Others compartmentalize: To use Francis Schaeffer's parlance, they put God in the "upper story" for devotional visits but macroevolution in the lower story where it rules their daily work. Some Christians in academia sat at the feet of materialist professors and have never transcended their graduate school training. Some evangelical professors have enough status anxiety already without suffering further indignity by being called anti-scientific.
Socrates in the City, the Christian gathering in Manhattan hosted by Eric Metaxas (see "Mission to Metropolis," Feb. 14), has witnessed attacks on ID by Collins and, last month, by Harvard professor emeritus Owen Gingerich, author of God's Universe (2006). Gingerich noted that today "even high school students study a great deal more about genetics than Darwin ever knew." He said he supports "lower case intelligent design" but opposes ID: He acknowledged that God created the universe but said such a consideration has no place in scientific discourse.
Gingerich takes that position because he defines science as "methodological naturalism": Anything supernatural cannot be part of science, so by definition ID has no place in scientific journals. I asked him why science should be equated only with naturalism: Why can't science be an attempt to find the most likely reasons why reality is as it is? In writing history books I haven't pretended to know exactly why certain events happened, but I've reported likely causes. In looking at the history of the development of life, can't we also assess likelihoods?
Gingerich is not willing to go that far, but Meyer is. He notes the importance of "generating a list of possible hypotheses" and then "progressively eliminating potential but inadequate explanations." In Signature in the Cell Meyer notes "the inability of genetic algorithms, ribozyme engineering, and prebiotic simulations to generate information without intelligence." Since the possibility of undirected materialistic causes producing life in its profusion is virtually nil, and since "conscious, rational intelligent agency . . . now stands as the only cause known to be capable of generating large amounts of specified information starting from a nonliving state," ID is by far the most plausible explanation.
Can science accept the concept of an intelligence beyond nature directing nature? If not, should the definition of science change?
Going against the party line: David Berlinski: A non-Christian ally of ID
by Marvin Olasky
The existence of David Berlinski is a problem for Darwinists who attempt to stigmatize critics by labeling all of them as religious creationists. The 67-year-old secular Jew and agnostic was born to Jewish-German refugees from Nazi Germany who fled to New York City. As a child he experimentally stuck a fork in an electric outlet. He has since shocked students through his teaching at Stanford, Rutgers, and at least eight other colleges and universities. He received his Ph.D. at Princeton University and has written curmudgeonly books such as The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions and Deniable Darwin and Other Essays.
Berlinski, proceeding from a scientific rather than a Christian viewpoint, sees "big holes in Darwinism. It's inadequate as a theory, and I feel very sympathetic, very warm, towards Intelligent Design." He also sympathizes with ID Daniels: "The academic world does not reward any kind of dissent . . . if you dissent from Darwin in any way, the suspicion immediately arises that you're going to be handling snakes next. The hostility toward the American evangelical community in particular and the Christian community in general (the Jewish community plays almost no role in this) is very powerful."
Perhaps because he cannot be typed as "some sort of religious nitwit," secular critics of Darwin sometimes confide in Berlinski: "There is a lot of dissent out there that is unexpressed. When I talk to mathematicians they say, 'We knew this stuff all along but we're not going to open our mouths.' When I talk to biologists, some of the good ones say very candidly, 'Darwin? That's just the party line.'"
Concerning Stephen Meyer's view that Darwin's theory will lose support as we gain more scientific knowledge, Berlinski says, "I think he's completely right. Either the gaps in Darwin's theory will shrink or they will expand, and I think the second is much more likely both in biology and physics." He adds, "We have to maintain a completely open mind, and I see no reason that the insights of Christian theology, Jewish theology, and Islamic theology should be ruled out of court at the very beginning because they're incompatible with a certain idea of what science is really about."
Flossing a lion: Darwin’s Origin gets a stealthy evangelistic introduction
by Alisa Harris
Richard Dawkins is suggesting that students rip out part of the latest edition of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species—the Christian introduction challenging Darwin's theories.
Frustrated that students are getting a "lopsided view of their origins," author and evangelist Ray Comfort realized that On the Origin of Species was in the public domain, which meant he could publish his own edition with his own introduction and distribute it across college and university campuses. He wrote a 54-page introduction challenging Darwin's views and with the help of evangelism organization Living Waters, recruited 1,200 volunteers to distribute 170,000 books at 100 universities.
The introduction starts with Darwin's biography and goes on to talk about the evidence against evolution: DNA as a sophisticated language that could not evolve by chance, the lack of transitional fossil forms, and the "irreducible complexity" of the human body. Comfort also argues that Darwin held racist and sexist views, and he traces Hitler's racism back to Darwin.
Because of Dawkins' suggestion and other talk of book burnings and protests, Living Waters decided to move up the date of distribution—from publicly announced Nov. 19 to Nov. 18. Comfort said a UCLA student protester told him, "You're not supposed to be here today. We're not ready."
Tristan Miller, the president of Bruin Alliance of Skeptics and Secularists at UCLA, said his group planned to hand out counter-fliers, pro-evolution materials, and free T-shirts. As for book burnings, "We would never do anything of the sort," he said. From Miller's perspective, the event was more about evangelism than science.
Comfort doesn't hide his evangelistic purpose, especially since the end of the introduction includes the gospel story and an invitation to accept Christianity. His goal is not only to turn people from evolution but also to bring them to Christianity, he said.
Living Waters will continue to print and distribute its edition across college campuses, but the when and where is secret, Comfort said: "Atheists will be trying to find out what universities we're going to visit and when we're going to visit them, but they have more chance of flossing the teeth of a lion at the L.A. zoo at feeding time than they have of getting that information."
Copyright © 2009 WORLD Magazine
Second, "The Humanist of the Year Award" found here.
Comes a Horseman
By PZ Myers
Published in the November/December 2009 Humanist
PZ Myers is a University of Minnesota biology professor who specializes in evolutionary developmental biology. He is also the author of the widely read and acclaimed science blog Pharyngula, which resides at Seed magazine's science blogs site. As a vocal atheist and skeptic of all forms of religion, superstition, and pseudoscience, Myers was a founding member of the pro-evolution website The Panda's Thumb and has long been a leading critic of creationism and intelligent design. Myers was honored as the 2009 Humanist of the Year by the American Humanist Association at its 68th annual conference in Tempe, Arizona. Introducing Myers at the June 6 award ceremony, Humanist editor Jennifer Bardi shared two stories demonstrating that, "while PZ Myers is a scientist, an educator, and a writer foremost, don't put it past him to pull a stunt or two that have sharp critical teeth." The first, about Myers being deceived into appearing in the anti-evolution film Expelled, ended with Myers being barred from the screening (while his guest Richard Dawkins gained entry) and heading directly to the nearest Apple store to blog about the fiasco. The second involved Myers' "Great Desecration" of a Eucharist wafer in response to an incident in which a University of Central Florida student received death threats and condemnation from conservatives nationwide when he stole a communion wafer to protest student fees being used toward religious services at the school.
The following is adapted from Myers' speech in acceptance of the Humanist of the Year award.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS GREAT HONOR. I also thank you for that very nice introduction. It was a little bit humbling because it brings to mind a great quote from Monty Python's Life of Brian that really puts a proper perspective on what I am. And the quote is from Brian's mother who says, "He's not the Messiah! He's just a very naughty boy." Not that I ever considered myself any kind of Messiah, of course, but yes, a naughty boy. I think a little naughtiness goes a long way and so it's a fair cop.
I do like to think that there's a bit more to it, though. And so what I'd like to do is tell you where I'm coming from, where I see myself, why I think the way I do, and a little bit about where you all come in.
Surely you've heard of the four horsemen. I'm not talking about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse from the book of Revelation; I'm talking about Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, popularized as the four horsemen of the New Atheism. They are all widely read authors of popular books who have been largely responsible, I think, for vaulting atheism into the public consciousness in the last few years. It's a slightly unfortunate analogy though, and I don't quite know why they're running with it. One problem, of course, lies in matching up identities. I can sort of see Hitchens as War but the other three are going to have to divvy up Pestilence, Famine, and Death. And this is probably not the best image we want to get across about humanism and atheism.
Another problem with the Four Horsemen analogy is the number. As we all know, there are quite a few more vocal people who have been active in atheism and humanism and secularism in general than just the four. What about Victor Stenger or Pascal Boyer? Richard Carrier, Julia Sweeney, Dan Barker? Don't they get horses? And what about me? You know, I'm as atheist as those others and I'm probably "atheier" than some of them. (Although I do have to admit I haven't written a book yet. I'm on sabbatical this year to finish my book, so maybe I'll get a horse after all.)
So I'm going to very prematurely declare myself a fifth horseman. I picture myself, though, as a little guy on a very small pony trotting after the other four. However, I'm waving a great big banner that has the words, "The Internet" on it. That's me. And I think it's important because, sure, John of Patmos (who wrote the book of Revelation) personifies War, Pestilence, Famine, and Death but I don't think any apocalypse is complete without the Internet in there somewhere, and so I have to fill that vital role. (If you don't believe me, try reading the comments on YouTube sometime. You'll figure the end really is near.)
So how does a professor at a small liberal arts university in the middle of nowhere get 2.5 million hits on his website every month? I really have to credit the topics—namely science and atheism—that are a large part of what I discuss there. I'm one of those people who intertwine the two and tangle them up, which has turned out to be extremely popular. So I can't take full credit; I've just happened to hit on a particular nerve in the culture right now.
And speaking of science and atheism, I agree completely with Richard Dawkins' statement that evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. But I also go a step further and say that a proper appreciation of the nature of the universe directly demolishes the pre-scientific conceptions of an active interventionist God. If you understand the science, you ought to be an atheist. Of course, humans are complicated and very contrary creatures who are really good at clinging to comforting beliefs in the face of the evidence, so the strongest word I can use there is "ought"—ought to be atheists. We can't simply say that scientists are atheists because there are those who aren't. There was a time when I myself had no problem reconciling or, I think more accurately, partitioning scientific and religious beliefs. But I was eleven years old, and I grew up.
When I was a little kid I was a major nerd. (I know—you can't believe this, right?) I had all the major afflictions. I memorized dinosaurs—all the Latin names, geological eras, the distributions, the names of the bones, the whole shebang. Like a lot of little kids I was really engrossed with that. I may have gone a little farther than most in that I dissected road kill for fun and my mother would sometimes get upset because when she was cooking I would collect chicken hearts and run them down to the basement with batteries and do unholy experiments on them. And it wasn't just biology. I was also really into the space program. I was born the year Sputnik was launched and grew up during the glory days of NASA. I built model rockets and had model airplanes hanging all over the ceiling of my bedroom. You would have looked at me then and thought, "This kid is going to be a virgin forever." Okay, a real nerd.
But here is something that sometimes surprises people. I went to church regularly. I wasn't one of these born-again zealots; I was just a kid. But the truth be told, I actually liked church. Maybe the sermons were a little boring for an eleven-year-old but these were friendly folks. Unlike some, I never experienced repressive horrors or abuse, nothing but a positive, wholesome interaction with people who were happy to be members of this quiet little Lutheran community. Good people all around. It also wasn't a fire-and-brimstone church. Hell was almost never mentioned. I went to Sunday school and I went to church and I was in the choir. I was an altar boy (oh, boy). My mother even has blackmail material which she calls photographs to prove it.
So there I am, a conventional little nerd; I'm mostly well-adjusted and normal. And like most people I'm looking at the world through two lenses. There was my left brain that was reaching out analytically and thinking about dinosaurs and about microscopes and about rocket ships and all those nifty science-y things. And then there was this right brain that was all hymns and Bible stories. And all was well until, of course, the two combined. As we have known from the movies, never cross the streams because that is bad. That is very, very bad.
Well, there is a scapegoat here. NASA crossed my streams and that is what I'm here to tell you. NASA is responsible for me being an atheist.
You see, when I was a boy we had the traditional Lutheran Christmas. We would go to church on Christmas Eve and then get together at my grandparents' house for a Scandinavian dinner. There would, of course, be things like the American turkey but we would also have lefse (a traditional soft Norwegian flatbread) and lutefisk. (I do not have fond memories of fish jelly soaked in lye, ok? That was just part of the cultural baggage that came along with me.) My great-grandfather would recite the Lord's Prayer in Norwegian for us. And afterwards I, being the oldest kid would sit down with the whole family and show off my literacy by reading from the Bible. I would read the story of Jesus' birth from the book of Luke. And this was our Christmas every year. It was great. I have absolutely no complaints—well, except for the lutefisk.
But one Christmas was special. I raced through that Bible reading because there was something on TV I had to watch that night. Some of you of a certain age may remember this—Christmas Eve, December 24, 1968. Yes, Apollo 8 was in orbit around the moon and they were going to broadcast from lunar orbit. So here I am, my right brain is fully engaged in all this ritual and fun stuff of the Christmas celebration and my left brain is just kind of throbbing with anticipation. Oh boy, I'm really into this rocket-ship stuff, and now I'm going to watch it on TV. Finally we turn on the television and there it is. Again, those of you who remember this remember the stunning Earthrise image they showed of this big, blue globe of the Earth rising over the horizon of the moon. It was spectacular right there on television. And I'm just sitting there in absolute awe. And then one of the astronauts, William Anders, speaks and these were his first words, "For all the people on Earth, the crew of Apollo 8 has a message we would like to send to you."
At this point I'm on the edge of my seat. If you've seen the movie A Christmas Story you may remember the part where Ralphie Parker receives the Little Orphan Annie secret decoder ring. He rushes into the bathroom and locks the door in this frenzy of excitement as he scrambles to decode his first message from the Ovaltine radio hour. This was me at the point Anders begins to speak. I just know he's going to say something really marvelous.
Of course, Anders goes on and the analogy of the movie becomes just perfect. If you remember the movie, the message was something like, "drink your Ovaltine." Anders goes on and what does he say? He says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."
Whoa, wait a minute! I thought. Then the other astronauts, Jim Lovell and Frank Borman, continued. They read a big chunk of the first chapter of the book of Genesis. And seriously, it was just like getting a commercial for Ovaltine. It was like opening that big present under the Christmas tree and discovering that it was a big, new pair of wooly underwear—an utter disappointment.
Now, my family seemed to think this was all very nice. And I think in general the public response in this country was positive to what it deemed a nice, affirmative message. The Christian moderates just ate it up. But I had been expecting something true and something deep. I wanted to know about the moon. Here we sent these astronauts there, and I wanted to know, what does it look like? Where did the moon come from? What do you see when you are up there? I wanted awe and I wanted wonder and I wanted truth. I wanted science and I wanted knowledge. And what did I get? I got drivel.
Okay, I know, a lot of people think Genesis is great poetry and lovely metaphor and I say go ahead and think that. It's fine. Lots of people really like the language of the Bible and I can't blame them. But you see, at that moment, I saw it side by side with this awesome reality and it suffered. It was trivial and tawdry against this lunar horizon, against this globe of the Earth, against this black, star-spattered sky and aboard this incredible feat of human engineering. And here they were, resurrecting 5,000-year-old myths. And that was what they thought we wanted to hear.
Now, I can't pretend that in that instant I had an epiphany and became an atheist. I did not. What I felt was discomfort, like I was missing something. It took several more years of gradual intellectual disaffection from the church before I actually left. But I can say that in that moment in 1968, which I still remember so vividly, the first seed of doubt was planted and I saw religion for what it was—a flawed and limited human interpretation, crudely plastered over the grandeur of reality. And it got worse. Much, much worse.
I did not become an astronaut. Instead, I fell in love with biology, which to me is far more complicated and much more interesting than space. And what particularly engrossed me was evolution and development. These are the study of dynamics of change over long and short periods of time. It is what I have spent my whole life now studying. And guess what, Genesis is still haunting me. It's still after me, because in this country many people think the book of Genesis is a serious alternative to biology.
Take the creation story, which, it turns out, is really easy to find in the Bible; it's in book one; chapter one; page one. How convenient. (This is a major advantage to creationists, by the way, since you don't really need any higher math skills or even the ability to count to find this text. I'm actually sure we'd be living in a much happier world if whoever wrote this book had decided to put this story on page seventeen because knowing people's attention spans, they'd never find it and they wouldn't be pestering us with it.) But, anyway, I can summarize it very briefly. God snaps his fingers six times and creates these gigantic, broad categories of nature in a single day. Each announces that they are good and God takes a break on day seven. That is really the whole content of chapter one.
It's not very satisfying. There is nothing in the way of explanation about how God does it and the order of creation is just plain weird. It doesn't match up with anything science tells us about the order of things appearing. There is no evidence. There is no experiment. There is no observation. He doesn't even cite a source, right? And there is absolutely no detail. I mean, look at day five. That's when God creates whales and birds, kind of lumping those two together, and then apparently waves his hand over all this other stuff that appears in the oceans which is not named. It doesn't even mention squid. Nowhere does the creation story mention squid. And I mean, really, if I were the creator and the universe was initially nothing but water as it says in verse two of Genesis, I would have created cephalopods on day one. And then I would have taken six days off.
Anyway, chapter one of the book of Genesis is a page-and-a-quarter long; it's flimsy. Unfortunately, what happens is that creationists read this one page and they set this against, say, my four years of undergraduate biology, my five years of graduate research, my six years of post-doctoral study, the sixteen years after that spent as a science professional, and they also put it against all the scientific literature. They place this page in the great balance of their minds, right? They put this in one pan and on the other side is all of reality—the universe, the cosmos, everything, right there on the other side, and they weigh them.
I have pointed out the triviality of this far-too-influential page of the book before and I often rip it out. I've had people sputter at me in horror or gasp, "This is a great literature! This is a wonderfully human attempt to understand the world and it is revered by millions of people and you have just belittled it." And I have to say yes. Yes, it probably should be considered great literature, but so what? What I'm saying is that as a way to understand the world, it's a flop. It's an attempt to impose a limited vision of reality on us and it has to be appreciated appropriately. This is not a science book. Even the theologians will tell us this. (Ask Barry Lynn—he'll tell you this isn't a science book.) It isn't even a Little Orphan Annie secret decoder ring. It is one page among the billions written by human beings trying to explain the world. And it's actually weaker than most.
And this is why I oppose religion. It's not because it kills people, although it does. It's not because it poisons everything, although it does. It's not because it is nothing but a philosophical construct even though that's all it is, and I actually kind of like philosophical constructs. Even moderate religion is an exercise in obscurantism, the elevation of feel-good fluff over substance. I oppose it because it is a barrier to understanding, a kind of simplistic facade thrown up to veil knowledge with a pretense of scholarliness. It's an imaginary shortcut that leads people astray, guaranteeing that they never see the real glory of a cell or of the stars. And I honestly hope that once people see the creation story for what little it is—one thin sheet of tissue paper—they will be able to crumple it up and toss it aside.
I'm not saying we should all run out and burn Bibles. Keep them. Appreciate them as books that have shaped history. There are some good parts and some bad parts that are relics of ancient days and they even contain cultural touchstones that teach us something about ourselves. But appreciate it for what it is, not for what it's not. It's not a magic recipe book that describes anything much beyond some narrow but influential tribal mythology, this tiny little slice of skewed history. I began with the mention of the Four Horsemen. As you might have guessed by now, I'm an atheist. And as you probably already knew, that was a biblical reference. We throw out biblical references all the time; it permeates the culture. My middle son was an English major and he once cussed me out because he said I never introduced him to the Bible and here he was reading Shakespeare. You can't make sense of Shakespeare without knowing something about what's in the Bible. You have to understand something about this horrible, awful, wonderful, puzzling, appalling, amazing, terrible little book in order to know what people like Dawkins and Dennett and Harris and Hitchens are talking about, and appreciate the irony and humor of the fact that the most prominent atheists in the world are referring to themselves as biblical scourges. We would be poorer for it if we did not have a grasp of this source text that permeates our culture.
So let me close with one more Bible quote that will answer a question I raised at the very beginning, which was, why only four horsemen? Revelation 9:16 is very useful. It says, "The number of the army of the horsemen was two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them." You heard it, the horsemen need two hundred million riders. So my final message is this: humanists, mount up.
PZ Myers, PhD, is an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris, author of the blog Pharyngula, and the 2009 Humanist of the Year.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Manhattan Declaration - Pro or Con?
Since the signing of the Manhattan Declaration, it has been getting all the buzz in the Christian blogosphere and news outlets. Even Bill O'Reilly makes it the focus of his Talking Points one day last week (Talking Points: 11/24).
What is the Manhattan Declaration? It is a Christian manifesto that addresses the moral issues of sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage and religious liberty and how they have been and continue to be issues that "are being subverted under our eyes" to quote Al Mohler. It is a joint statement between Evangelicals, Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
You can read the declaration here and read the names of the signatories here.
A quick perusal through the signatories will reveal many well-respected and sound thinkers within the Evangelical community. Yet, for as many sound thinkers who have signed this document we have just as many respected theologians against it including Alistair Begg and John McArthur.
The argument for being part of this declaration is basically these issues are part of our call to a justice ministry.
The argument against is that when Evangelicals join the ranks of support for the Manhattan Declaration we are de facto subverting the gospel and raising a contrary gospel in its place. This is especially obvious through Dan Phillips' 19 questions he asks of all who sign this document, which can be read here.
The most cogent argument I found pro the Manhattan Declaration was from Al Mohler. I found three arguments against the Manhattan Declaration worth reading. They are by John Stackhouse, James White and Frank Turk.
The issue of difference is a place of emphasis. Al Mohler, and the other sound Evangelical leaders who signed the MD, clearly do not see the integrity of the gospel message at risk. They clearly believe they can, with integrity, continue to preach the gospel of Christ while supporting this initiative. Those against question, at best, this ability.
Of all those against I think John Stackhouse raises the primary issue, which really is a "what now" issue? Okay, okay - you've signed the declaration. But now what? Where do we go from here? Have we not already been saying these things as a collective whole from our individual positions of influence? Coming along side each other will make what impact? Until I would be satisfied with answers given to these specific issues I see no reason to sign this document.
However, I don't think that the signing of the MD is a compromise of conscience for those who signed. Their track record says different. They are men and women of faith who have been exemplary in the past and we should do well to remember that as we raise our own concerns.
On a closing thought concerning the compromise of the gospel by signing this document - the issue has been raised that Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses were not invited to sign the document because it is meant to be a Christian document. This is proof, says the argument, that we are comprising the gospel message because we are aligning ourselves with Roman Catholics and The Eastern Orthodox Church and agreeing that they are Christian de facto. But the very heart of our break from Catholicism is Soli Fide - by faith alone. This comes to the very heart of the gospel. If we agree that they preach a different gospel, why are we excluding others who claim to preach the Christian message but who in fact subvert it? This is a good question and deserves its own attention in many respects. However, let me point out that general evangelical consensus would say (and I agree) that there are Christians who are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox but not Mormon or Jehovah Witness. So some distinction is made already. Also, many evangelical churches believe that faith is a work of oneself including the possibility of loss of salvation engaging in a similar theology as both Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church. These churches are far from their reformation roots. If we are not prepared to cast out our synergistic brothers and sisters in Evangelical circles than we have no leg to stand on to do so based on the same ground to RC and EO. I am not saying the differences are precisely the same, but that faith alone is a topic of disagreement even within the Evangelical community. I admit I lament this, but that is not the point of the charges raised against evangelicals signing the document when it comes to gospel integrity. The charge is one of Salvation by faith alone. If Soli Fide is the real issue not to sign the Manhattan Declaration then we should not only not sign because of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxians, but also because of Evangelical Christians who do not have a consistent faith system of faith alone.
What is the Manhattan Declaration? It is a Christian manifesto that addresses the moral issues of sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage and religious liberty and how they have been and continue to be issues that "are being subverted under our eyes" to quote Al Mohler. It is a joint statement between Evangelicals, Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
You can read the declaration here and read the names of the signatories here.
A quick perusal through the signatories will reveal many well-respected and sound thinkers within the Evangelical community. Yet, for as many sound thinkers who have signed this document we have just as many respected theologians against it including Alistair Begg and John McArthur.
The argument for being part of this declaration is basically these issues are part of our call to a justice ministry.
The argument against is that when Evangelicals join the ranks of support for the Manhattan Declaration we are de facto subverting the gospel and raising a contrary gospel in its place. This is especially obvious through Dan Phillips' 19 questions he asks of all who sign this document, which can be read here.
The most cogent argument I found pro the Manhattan Declaration was from Al Mohler. I found three arguments against the Manhattan Declaration worth reading. They are by John Stackhouse, James White and Frank Turk.
The issue of difference is a place of emphasis. Al Mohler, and the other sound Evangelical leaders who signed the MD, clearly do not see the integrity of the gospel message at risk. They clearly believe they can, with integrity, continue to preach the gospel of Christ while supporting this initiative. Those against question, at best, this ability.
Of all those against I think John Stackhouse raises the primary issue, which really is a "what now" issue? Okay, okay - you've signed the declaration. But now what? Where do we go from here? Have we not already been saying these things as a collective whole from our individual positions of influence? Coming along side each other will make what impact? Until I would be satisfied with answers given to these specific issues I see no reason to sign this document.
However, I don't think that the signing of the MD is a compromise of conscience for those who signed. Their track record says different. They are men and women of faith who have been exemplary in the past and we should do well to remember that as we raise our own concerns.
On a closing thought concerning the compromise of the gospel by signing this document - the issue has been raised that Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses were not invited to sign the document because it is meant to be a Christian document. This is proof, says the argument, that we are comprising the gospel message because we are aligning ourselves with Roman Catholics and The Eastern Orthodox Church and agreeing that they are Christian de facto. But the very heart of our break from Catholicism is Soli Fide - by faith alone. This comes to the very heart of the gospel. If we agree that they preach a different gospel, why are we excluding others who claim to preach the Christian message but who in fact subvert it? This is a good question and deserves its own attention in many respects. However, let me point out that general evangelical consensus would say (and I agree) that there are Christians who are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox but not Mormon or Jehovah Witness. So some distinction is made already. Also, many evangelical churches believe that faith is a work of oneself including the possibility of loss of salvation engaging in a similar theology as both Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church. These churches are far from their reformation roots. If we are not prepared to cast out our synergistic brothers and sisters in Evangelical circles than we have no leg to stand on to do so based on the same ground to RC and EO. I am not saying the differences are precisely the same, but that faith alone is a topic of disagreement even within the Evangelical community. I admit I lament this, but that is not the point of the charges raised against evangelicals signing the document when it comes to gospel integrity. The charge is one of Salvation by faith alone. If Soli Fide is the real issue not to sign the Manhattan Declaration then we should not only not sign because of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxians, but also because of Evangelical Christians who do not have a consistent faith system of faith alone.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Saturdays Are For Stories
A child's logic is an amazing thing.
It was a long day. I was tired, ready to be home with my precious quartet of ladies. I walked into the house, gave hugs, kisses as I numbly listened to the ramblings of three little ladies speaking simultaneously. Into the bedroom I walked to change in a comfortable outfit.
That is when I saw it. I stopped; the talking continued. The shadows from the setting sun concealed it a bit on the soft lavender paint behind it, but it was undeniably there - right above our headboard. Someone had been writing on my wall. All three girls stopped speaking, sensing something had just changed.
Me: Who wrote on the wall?
Ladies: Not me.
Me: Remember to not lie.
Charis (My oldest): I did.
Me: Why did you do that? You're the oldest and know better.
Charis: Well I didn’t want you to get mad at me for going into the playroom to get a piece of paper.
It was a long day. I was tired, ready to be home with my precious quartet of ladies. I walked into the house, gave hugs, kisses as I numbly listened to the ramblings of three little ladies speaking simultaneously. Into the bedroom I walked to change in a comfortable outfit.
That is when I saw it. I stopped; the talking continued. The shadows from the setting sun concealed it a bit on the soft lavender paint behind it, but it was undeniably there - right above our headboard. Someone had been writing on my wall. All three girls stopped speaking, sensing something had just changed.
Me: Who wrote on the wall?
Ladies: Not me.
Me: Remember to not lie.
Charis (My oldest): I did.
Me: Why did you do that? You're the oldest and know better.
Charis: Well I didn’t want you to get mad at me for going into the playroom to get a piece of paper.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
A Memoir - A Thanksgiving Day Poem for 2009
God you call upon my name I beknow
I create firm fortress of belial
I set walls with mortar of denial
I hide within its coolness and shadow
I’m confident in a demise I sow
Beckoning of spring and life ambrosial
Upon me springs Your Spirit agential
I’m overwhelmed by Your love’s overflow
Your kindness is terrible when awoke
What I built was not stone nor abutment
I see life as it is: glass, mirror, smoke
I am naked, fragile, weak and then spent
“You’re weak, bankrupt; I am strong, rich” God spoke
Haze to truth by love my soul’s adjustment
My soul has never known such deep despair
My inheritance of guilt brings me shame
I have naught of myself to cling or claim
Grief in my soul due to this sin affair
My name, when you call it, sounds sweet and fair
Consumed by grief you beckon me by name
Inside out; my shame exchanged for your fame
Drawn by your embrace Your Presence to share
General bowed down, a king on his face
As you make me complete, an heir - whole, healed
My life wanton to a desolate place
Raised up, my place in your abode revealed
Your Spirit beckons me come to your grace
By Your peace my just sentence You repealed
My hand and my knee in gravel and stone
With people from around the global sea
Rich, poor, slave, free, male, female, Greek and me
Surrounded, I find that I’m not alone
Sing united the Name that does atone
Throne, barn, cross, grave –offense of high degree
Jesus became a curse by God’s decree
In awe, I bow at the cross I now own
My inheritance was shame with death due
Nothing have I to give for His renown
Vividly, His blood has an endless view
Instantly His heritage is my crown
Now I’m called righteous and am seen as true
I’m clothed, His righteousness is now my gown
Once upon a time, Antiquity said
O my soul, delight yourself in the Lord
A call of action I always ignored
To enjoy God? Not me, rather be dead
Now by faith graciously given – I’m led
My soul’s purpose has God as its reward
My voice culminates in a joyful chord
My soul’s result is joy, for which He bled
Wait patiently on the Lord, O my soul
Wait upon his way, be my heart’s vision
My soul’s command, my heart’s happy extole
The fight in life takes a new rotation
I live, but struggle with this fleshly whole
King Jesus is my Crutch and my Champion
Life tells that God’s faithfulness never fails
Yahweh’s promises I cannot discount
My future hope comes from a true account
I groan eagerly in my painful veil
Jesus tells me impatience to curtail
For his timing is not slow as I count
He is waiting for the number to mount
Then a full feast when the bridegroom we hail
You are more precious than a bird or bloom
They have beds of soil and houses of tree
Brief affliction holds no proper power
God’s perfect plan is timeless in degree
It points to His grace throne any hour
There is more to you than dirt, fire, sky, sea
Holy in Christ Jesus I desire
My rebellious lusts I want You to fight
So persecution is part of my plight
For Jesus’ name I toil but don’t tire
His affable grace and joy make Him sire
My life not my own is now my delight
In the midst of this hardness I invite
From my side God never will retire
I am an alien and a stranger
I am a child of another world
Here I stand on this side; A dark mirror
A veiled light, fog of soupy night unfurled
A scale refracted; Salt keeps its power
Lord let me see you; Don’t be concealed
I create firm fortress of belial
I set walls with mortar of denial
I hide within its coolness and shadow
I’m confident in a demise I sow
Beckoning of spring and life ambrosial
Upon me springs Your Spirit agential
I’m overwhelmed by Your love’s overflow
Your kindness is terrible when awoke
What I built was not stone nor abutment
I see life as it is: glass, mirror, smoke
I am naked, fragile, weak and then spent
“You’re weak, bankrupt; I am strong, rich” God spoke
Haze to truth by love my soul’s adjustment
My soul has never known such deep despair
My inheritance of guilt brings me shame
I have naught of myself to cling or claim
Grief in my soul due to this sin affair
My name, when you call it, sounds sweet and fair
Consumed by grief you beckon me by name
Inside out; my shame exchanged for your fame
Drawn by your embrace Your Presence to share
General bowed down, a king on his face
As you make me complete, an heir - whole, healed
My life wanton to a desolate place
Raised up, my place in your abode revealed
Your Spirit beckons me come to your grace
By Your peace my just sentence You repealed
My hand and my knee in gravel and stone
With people from around the global sea
Rich, poor, slave, free, male, female, Greek and me
Surrounded, I find that I’m not alone
Sing united the Name that does atone
Throne, barn, cross, grave –offense of high degree
Jesus became a curse by God’s decree
In awe, I bow at the cross I now own
My inheritance was shame with death due
Nothing have I to give for His renown
Vividly, His blood has an endless view
Instantly His heritage is my crown
Now I’m called righteous and am seen as true
I’m clothed, His righteousness is now my gown
Once upon a time, Antiquity said
O my soul, delight yourself in the Lord
A call of action I always ignored
To enjoy God? Not me, rather be dead
Now by faith graciously given – I’m led
My soul’s purpose has God as its reward
My voice culminates in a joyful chord
My soul’s result is joy, for which He bled
Wait patiently on the Lord, O my soul
Wait upon his way, be my heart’s vision
My soul’s command, my heart’s happy extole
The fight in life takes a new rotation
I live, but struggle with this fleshly whole
King Jesus is my Crutch and my Champion
Life tells that God’s faithfulness never fails
Yahweh’s promises I cannot discount
My future hope comes from a true account
I groan eagerly in my painful veil
Jesus tells me impatience to curtail
For his timing is not slow as I count
He is waiting for the number to mount
Then a full feast when the bridegroom we hail
You are more precious than a bird or bloom
They have beds of soil and houses of tree
Brief affliction holds no proper power
God’s perfect plan is timeless in degree
It points to His grace throne any hour
There is more to you than dirt, fire, sky, sea
Holy in Christ Jesus I desire
My rebellious lusts I want You to fight
So persecution is part of my plight
For Jesus’ name I toil but don’t tire
His affable grace and joy make Him sire
My life not my own is now my delight
In the midst of this hardness I invite
From my side God never will retire
I am an alien and a stranger
I am a child of another world
Here I stand on this side; A dark mirror
A veiled light, fog of soupy night unfurled
A scale refracted; Salt keeps its power
Lord let me see you; Don’t be concealed
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The Miracle of Suffering
Here comes Thanksgiving Day. How are we to be thankful? What should the cause of our thankfulness be? What if you are going through a hard time? Or maybe I should ask “How can we be thankful especially when things go wrong most of the time and seem to only get worse as the days go by?” Am I doom-n-gloom? I don’t think so, but we must deal with the problem of evil in the world. It is here and our answer informs the world with how we cope. When I say problem of evil I have in view all types that fall into the classical discussion– moral, natural, gratuitous, sickness, pain. For the sake of this blog I’m going to call all these things suffering. Suffering because not all of them are in and of themselves evil, but we still deal with them and have to figure out why they exist and what we should think about them and an appropriate response to them.
Here are a few thoughts from my Christian perspective of the use of suffering and what it accomplishes in life. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but just some things that suffering should and does do.
Here are a few thoughts from my Christian perspective of the use of suffering and what it accomplishes in life. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but just some things that suffering should and does do.
- Suffering results in humility. God tells us to be humble (Philippians 2:3-8). John Calvin writes “I have always been exceedingly delighted with the words of Chrysostom, ‘The foundation of our philosophy is humility;’ and still more with those of Augustine, ‘As the orator, when asked, What is the first precept in eloquence? answered, Delivery: What is the second? Delivery: What the third? Delivery: so, if you ask me in regard to the precepts of the Christian Religion, I will answer, first, second, and third, Humility.’” (Institutes 2.2.11) In our culture humility is not a good thing, but for a Christian it is a great thing. We are not self-sufficient. There are just some hurdles we cannot jump no matter how hard we try. Reality is we are spiritually extremely needy. We are spiritually bankrupt (Matthew 5:3). We are in a worse spot than the beggar at the corner of the street. But humility comes in and by calling us to recognize our situation also points to the all sufficient Provider and Healer and Comforter and Savior (Psalm 50:15). We cling to him and he reveals how he is more than sufficient in all things. We are taught how our weakness shows off his strength (II Corinthians 12:9). Suffering does this. (More from John Calvin here).
- Suffering calls us to repentance (Luke 13:1-5). An overarching reality in Scripture concerning suffering is that it is a result of our declaring war upon God. Just grant for a second the idea that there is a divine being out there who created the whole universe and that part of his creation was orders and rules. Then his creation decided it was going to do thing its own way. It decided it wanted to live a life to the theme of Bon Jovi – “Its my life” and all that. So it does, the Creator lets it. Ask yourself: If this is true is suffering really surprising? The Bible says no (Romans 8:22-23) and that when we see suffering occur around us one of the things it should do is to call us to stop shoving our fist in God’s face. Lest we Christians think too much of ourselves we know that God uses suffering in our lives to burn our personal dross and continually draw us to him. Discipline, when done right, is a form of love (Hebrews 12:5-11). Suffering does this. (More on Suffering in today’s world)
- Suffering gives us opportunity to proclaim the value of Jesus to those who don’t know him (Colossians 1:24). Even thought this point is sandwiched into the middle it may be the biggest point. When our suffering causes us to abandon God we are saying that he is not more valuable than those things whose loss we are lamenting – be it the loss of health, wealth, security, limb or life as being more precious than him. They are not more precious than him. He is the only completely unique and set-apart being there is. There is no other. Most importantly in this aspect of suffering is the offensive reality of how much Jesus suffered for you and me. For those of us not at his crucifixion it is very hard to get the overall sense of his torment. But God puts suffering Christians into the lives of others to be liaisons of suffering – to be representatives to show everyone what Jesus’ suffering looks like and why it is so valuable (Luke 24:25-27; Galatians 2:19-21). Suffering does this. (More on living out Christ’s sufferings for others)
- There is a hope in our suffering as Christians (Romans 5:1-5). Our sufferings today are light afflictions. Our sufferings remind us our eternal dwelling with God is one of infinite joy. We are aliens or as one of my favorite songs says, “We are poor, wayfaring strangers.” This present from of creation is not our home (John 8:23, compare with Ephesians 2:19). Our home rests with God when he brings this creation back to rights at the end of days. We look forward, with grand anticipation (I Corinthians 15:54-58), like a young girl does all through her life as she dreams of that perfect wedding day (Matthew 25). We long, we day dream, we discuss, we sing, write poems and books and music (Revelation 21:4-8). Our kingdom is another kingdom. We patiently, but restlessly await its final culmination to be complete. Suffering does this. (Listen to Poor Wayfaring Stranger here)
- For those who are not Christians, their suffering is also a light affliction; although it may not feel so. However, while a Christian finds hope in our momentary afflictions, we also need to feel the call to rise and proclaim God’s message of salvation to any who will hear (Romans 10:8-21). For the Christian will find infinite joy that grows with each passing day of eternity in our fellowshipping with the Perfect Father. We will know grace and mercy to a depth unimaginable each day, only to discover that the next day brings it even deeper as our knowledge of God grows infinitely throughout eternity. But for those who stay stubbornly in rebellion despite what God has done and communicated to them, there is absolutely nothing on this present sod that will compare with the intense wrath of a holy God who has been spurned by that which is obligated to love and enjoy him (Isaiah 30:18; 58:14). If Hell is real, as Christians and the Bible contend, then it is a place where God’s wrath is felt infinitely. Where it grows with each passing day in severity and when you think you can’t imagine it being any more of a nightmare it grows ever deeper with each passing day. With descriptors of burning and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:12; 13:42,50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Mark 9:18; Luke 13:28), Hell is a place where God’s holiness is revealed and the knowledge of this holiness spurned causes torment. Then will those in Hell long for the sufferings of this time (Luke 16:19-31), but it will be too late. So, for Christians, suffering is an anthem call to love all. Suffering can prevent this. (Listen to Penn Jillette, from the comedy team Penn and Teller, say it best. He is a committed atheist who is having no crisis of belief and still says it best.)
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Materialism is a Metanarrative, not Science
Richard Lewontin, a Harvard evolutionist, in “Billions and Billions of Demons,” a review of Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, New York Review of Books (January 9, 1997) wrote the following. Do you get the significance to what he admits?
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck8 used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck8 used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
Friday, November 20, 2009
Collision: Is Religion Absurd or Good for the World?
An article in the Huffington Post came out in October to coincide with the release of Collision. It is a documentary that follows the touring debate of Christopher Hitchens and Pastor Douglas Wilson. The article, which is written by the both of them is below. Two interesting perspectives on the issue. The article follows:
Last fall, we went on tour debating the topic "Is Religion Good For The World?" Our arguments were captured on film for a new documentary, Collison. Are our morals dictated to us by a supreme entity or do discoveries made by science and reason, make Atheism a natural conclusion? You decide.
Religion Is Absurd by Christopher Hitchens
Religion will always retain a certain tattered prestige because it was our first attempt as a species to make sense of the cosmos and of our own nature, and because it continues to ask "why". Its incurable disability, however, lies in its insistence that the answer to that question can be determined with certainty on the basis of revelation and faith. We do not know, though we may assume, that our pre-homo sapiens ancestors (the erectus, the Cro-Magnons and the Neanderthals, with whom we have a traceable kinship as we do with other surviving primates) had deities that they sought to propitiate. Alas, no religion of which we are now aware has ever taken their existence into account, or indeed made any allowance for the tens and probably hundreds of thousands of years of the human story. Instead, we are asked to believe that the essential problem was solved about two-to-three thousand years ago, by various serial appearances of divine intervention and guidance in remote and primitive parts of what is now (at least to Westerners) the Middle East. This absurd belief would not even deserve to be called quixotic if it had not inspired masterpieces of art and music and architecture as well as the most appalling atrocities and depredations. The great cultural question before us is therefore this: can we manage to preserve what is numinous and transcendent and ecstatic without giving any more room to the superstitious and the supernatural. (For example, can one treasure and appreciate the Parthenon, say, while recognizing that the religious cult that gave rise to it is dead, and was in many ways sinister and cruel?) A related question is: can we be moral and ethical in our thoughts and actions without the servile idea that our morals are dictated to us by a supreme entity? I believe that the answer to both of these questions is in the affirmative. Tremendous and beautiful things have been achieved by science and reason, from the Hubble telescope to the sequencing of the DNA of obscure viruses. All of these attainments have tended to remind us, however, that we are an animal species inhabiting a rather remote and tiny suburb of an unimaginably large universe. However, this sobering finding -- and it is a finding -- is no reason to assume that we do not have duties to one another, to other species, and to the biosphere. It may even be easier to draw these moral conclusions once we are free of the egotistic notion that we are somehow the centre of the process, or objects of a creation or a "design". Dostoevsky said that without belief in god men would be capable of anything: surely we know by now that the belief in a divine order, and in divine orders, is an even greater license to act as if normal restraints were non-existent? If Moses and Jesus and Mohammed had never existed -- let alone Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy or Kim Jong Il or any of the other man-made prophets or idols -- we would still be faced with precisely the same questions about how to explain ourselves and our lives, how to think about the just city, and how to comport ourselves with our fellow-creatures. The small progress we have made so far, from the basic realization that diseases are not punishments to the noble idea that as humans we may even have "rights", is due to the exercise of skepticism and doubt, and to the objective scrutiny of hard evidence, and not at all to faith or certainty. The real "transcendence", then, is the one that allows us to shake off the notion of a never-dying tyrannical father-figure, with its unconsoling illusion of redemption by human sacrifice, and assume our proper proportion as people condemned to be free, and able to outgrow the fearful tutelage of a supreme supervisor who does not forgive us the errors he has programmed us to make.
***
Atheists Suck at Being Atheists by Pastor Douglas Wilson
From the perspective of a Christian, the refusal of an atheist to be a Christian is dismaying, but it is at least intelligible. But what is really disconcerting is the failure of atheists to be atheists. That is the thing that cries out for further exploration. We can understand a cook who sets out to prepare a reduction sauce, having it simmer on the stove for three days. But what we shouldn't get is the announcement afterwards that he has prepared us a soufflé. The atheistic worldview is nothing if not inherently reductionistic, whether this is admitted or not. Everything that happens is a chance-driven rattle-jattle jumble in the great concourse of atoms that we call time. Time and chance acting on matter have brought about, in equally aimless fashion, the 1927 New York Yankees, yesterday's foam on a New Jersey beach, Princess Di, the arrangement of pebbles on the back side of the moon, the music of John Cage, the Fourth Crusade, and the current gaggle representing us all in Congress. If the universe actually is what the materialistic atheist claims it is, then certain things follow from that presupposition. The argument is simple to follow, and is frequently accepted by the sophomore presidents of atheist/agnostic clubs at a university near you, but it is rare for a well-published atheistic leader to acknowledge the force of the argument. To acknowledge openly the corrosive relativism that atheism necessarily entails would do nothing but get the chimps jumping in the red states. To swallow the reduction would present serious public relations problems, and drive Fox News ratings up even further. Who needs that? So if the universe is what the atheist maintains it is, then this determines what sort of account we must give for the nature of everything -- and this includes the atheist's thought processes, ethical convictions, and aesthetic appreciations. If you were to shake up two bottles of pop and place them on a table to fizz over, you could not fill up an auditorium with people who came to watch them debate. This is because they are not debating; they are just fizzing. If you were to shake up one bottle of pop, and show it film footage of some genocidal atrocity, the reaction you would get is not moral outrage, but rather more fizzing. And if you were to shake it really hard by means of art school, and place it in front of Michelangelo's David, or the Rose Window of Chartres Cathedral, the results would not really be aesthetic appreciation, but more fizzing still. If the atheist is right, then I am not a Christian because I have mistaken beliefs, but am rather a Christian because that is what these chemicals would always do in this arrangement and at this temperature. The problem is that this atheistic assumption does the very same thing to the atheist's case for atheism. The atheist gives us an account of all things which makes it impossible for us to believe that any account of all things could possibly be true. But no account of things can be tenable unless it provides us with the preconditions that make it possible for our "accounting" to represent genuine insight. Atheism fails to do this, and the failure is a spectacular one. Nor does atheism allow us to have any fixed ethical standard, or the possibility of beauty. It does no good to appeal to the discoveries made by science and reason, for one of the things that reason has apparently brought us is atheism. Right? And not content to let sleeping dogs lie, reason also brings us the inexorable consequences of atheism, which includes the unpalatable but necessary conclusion that random neuron firings do not amount to any "truth" that corresponds to anything outside our heads. This, ironically enough, includes atheism, and so we find ourselves falling out of the tree, saw in one hand and branch in the other. Contrast this with the Christian gospel -- God the Father is the Maker of heaven and earth. He sent His Son to be born one of us; this Son died on gibbet for our sins, as the ultimate and final human sacrifice, and He rose from the dead on the third day following. Having ascended into Heaven and taken His place at the right hand of His Father, He sent His Holy Spirit into the world in order to transform it, a process that is still ongoing. Now obviously, this is a message that can be believed or disbelieved. But the reason for mentioning it here includes the important point that such a set of convictions makes it possible for us to believe that reason can be trusted, that goodness does not change with the evolutionary times, and that beauty is grounded in the very heart of God. Someone who believes these things doesn't believe that we are just fizzing. You can deny that this God exists, of course, and you can throw the whole cosmos into that pan of reduction sauce. And you can keep the heat on by publishing one atheist missive after another. But what you should not be allowed to do is cook the whole thing bone dry and call the crust on the bottom an example of the numinous or transcendent. Calling it that provides us with no reason to believe it -- and numerous reasons not to.
Last fall, we went on tour debating the topic "Is Religion Good For The World?" Our arguments were captured on film for a new documentary, Collison. Are our morals dictated to us by a supreme entity or do discoveries made by science and reason, make Atheism a natural conclusion? You decide.
Religion Is Absurd by Christopher Hitchens
Religion will always retain a certain tattered prestige because it was our first attempt as a species to make sense of the cosmos and of our own nature, and because it continues to ask "why". Its incurable disability, however, lies in its insistence that the answer to that question can be determined with certainty on the basis of revelation and faith. We do not know, though we may assume, that our pre-homo sapiens ancestors (the erectus, the Cro-Magnons and the Neanderthals, with whom we have a traceable kinship as we do with other surviving primates) had deities that they sought to propitiate. Alas, no religion of which we are now aware has ever taken their existence into account, or indeed made any allowance for the tens and probably hundreds of thousands of years of the human story. Instead, we are asked to believe that the essential problem was solved about two-to-three thousand years ago, by various serial appearances of divine intervention and guidance in remote and primitive parts of what is now (at least to Westerners) the Middle East. This absurd belief would not even deserve to be called quixotic if it had not inspired masterpieces of art and music and architecture as well as the most appalling atrocities and depredations. The great cultural question before us is therefore this: can we manage to preserve what is numinous and transcendent and ecstatic without giving any more room to the superstitious and the supernatural. (For example, can one treasure and appreciate the Parthenon, say, while recognizing that the religious cult that gave rise to it is dead, and was in many ways sinister and cruel?) A related question is: can we be moral and ethical in our thoughts and actions without the servile idea that our morals are dictated to us by a supreme entity? I believe that the answer to both of these questions is in the affirmative. Tremendous and beautiful things have been achieved by science and reason, from the Hubble telescope to the sequencing of the DNA of obscure viruses. All of these attainments have tended to remind us, however, that we are an animal species inhabiting a rather remote and tiny suburb of an unimaginably large universe. However, this sobering finding -- and it is a finding -- is no reason to assume that we do not have duties to one another, to other species, and to the biosphere. It may even be easier to draw these moral conclusions once we are free of the egotistic notion that we are somehow the centre of the process, or objects of a creation or a "design". Dostoevsky said that without belief in god men would be capable of anything: surely we know by now that the belief in a divine order, and in divine orders, is an even greater license to act as if normal restraints were non-existent? If Moses and Jesus and Mohammed had never existed -- let alone Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy or Kim Jong Il or any of the other man-made prophets or idols -- we would still be faced with precisely the same questions about how to explain ourselves and our lives, how to think about the just city, and how to comport ourselves with our fellow-creatures. The small progress we have made so far, from the basic realization that diseases are not punishments to the noble idea that as humans we may even have "rights", is due to the exercise of skepticism and doubt, and to the objective scrutiny of hard evidence, and not at all to faith or certainty. The real "transcendence", then, is the one that allows us to shake off the notion of a never-dying tyrannical father-figure, with its unconsoling illusion of redemption by human sacrifice, and assume our proper proportion as people condemned to be free, and able to outgrow the fearful tutelage of a supreme supervisor who does not forgive us the errors he has programmed us to make.
***
Atheists Suck at Being Atheists by Pastor Douglas Wilson
From the perspective of a Christian, the refusal of an atheist to be a Christian is dismaying, but it is at least intelligible. But what is really disconcerting is the failure of atheists to be atheists. That is the thing that cries out for further exploration. We can understand a cook who sets out to prepare a reduction sauce, having it simmer on the stove for three days. But what we shouldn't get is the announcement afterwards that he has prepared us a soufflé. The atheistic worldview is nothing if not inherently reductionistic, whether this is admitted or not. Everything that happens is a chance-driven rattle-jattle jumble in the great concourse of atoms that we call time. Time and chance acting on matter have brought about, in equally aimless fashion, the 1927 New York Yankees, yesterday's foam on a New Jersey beach, Princess Di, the arrangement of pebbles on the back side of the moon, the music of John Cage, the Fourth Crusade, and the current gaggle representing us all in Congress. If the universe actually is what the materialistic atheist claims it is, then certain things follow from that presupposition. The argument is simple to follow, and is frequently accepted by the sophomore presidents of atheist/agnostic clubs at a university near you, but it is rare for a well-published atheistic leader to acknowledge the force of the argument. To acknowledge openly the corrosive relativism that atheism necessarily entails would do nothing but get the chimps jumping in the red states. To swallow the reduction would present serious public relations problems, and drive Fox News ratings up even further. Who needs that? So if the universe is what the atheist maintains it is, then this determines what sort of account we must give for the nature of everything -- and this includes the atheist's thought processes, ethical convictions, and aesthetic appreciations. If you were to shake up two bottles of pop and place them on a table to fizz over, you could not fill up an auditorium with people who came to watch them debate. This is because they are not debating; they are just fizzing. If you were to shake up one bottle of pop, and show it film footage of some genocidal atrocity, the reaction you would get is not moral outrage, but rather more fizzing. And if you were to shake it really hard by means of art school, and place it in front of Michelangelo's David, or the Rose Window of Chartres Cathedral, the results would not really be aesthetic appreciation, but more fizzing still. If the atheist is right, then I am not a Christian because I have mistaken beliefs, but am rather a Christian because that is what these chemicals would always do in this arrangement and at this temperature. The problem is that this atheistic assumption does the very same thing to the atheist's case for atheism. The atheist gives us an account of all things which makes it impossible for us to believe that any account of all things could possibly be true. But no account of things can be tenable unless it provides us with the preconditions that make it possible for our "accounting" to represent genuine insight. Atheism fails to do this, and the failure is a spectacular one. Nor does atheism allow us to have any fixed ethical standard, or the possibility of beauty. It does no good to appeal to the discoveries made by science and reason, for one of the things that reason has apparently brought us is atheism. Right? And not content to let sleeping dogs lie, reason also brings us the inexorable consequences of atheism, which includes the unpalatable but necessary conclusion that random neuron firings do not amount to any "truth" that corresponds to anything outside our heads. This, ironically enough, includes atheism, and so we find ourselves falling out of the tree, saw in one hand and branch in the other. Contrast this with the Christian gospel -- God the Father is the Maker of heaven and earth. He sent His Son to be born one of us; this Son died on gibbet for our sins, as the ultimate and final human sacrifice, and He rose from the dead on the third day following. Having ascended into Heaven and taken His place at the right hand of His Father, He sent His Holy Spirit into the world in order to transform it, a process that is still ongoing. Now obviously, this is a message that can be believed or disbelieved. But the reason for mentioning it here includes the important point that such a set of convictions makes it possible for us to believe that reason can be trusted, that goodness does not change with the evolutionary times, and that beauty is grounded in the very heart of God. Someone who believes these things doesn't believe that we are just fizzing. You can deny that this God exists, of course, and you can throw the whole cosmos into that pan of reduction sauce. And you can keep the heat on by publishing one atheist missive after another. But what you should not be allowed to do is cook the whole thing bone dry and call the crust on the bottom an example of the numinous or transcendent. Calling it that provides us with no reason to believe it -- and numerous reasons not to.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Prodigal God
I just finished reading Tim Keller's A Prodigal God. It is a short book - at most a three hour read. Some thoughts after reading this book. Wow. Profound. Incredible. Poignant. Exciting. Liberating. Revealing.
Rarely do books capture poignancy with simplicity. This book is an exception. I cannot over-endorse this book to you, regardless of your faith position. Buy it, borrow it (don't steal it), and read it.
Rarely do books capture poignancy with simplicity. This book is an exception. I cannot over-endorse this book to you, regardless of your faith position. Buy it, borrow it (don't steal it), and read it.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Getting the Emphasis (W)right
I was listening to D.A. Carson lecture on the New Perspective of Paul. I found this following statement in the middle of the lecture to a major criticism of the New Perspective, but also for much of our own bible readings if we are not careful. Since he spoke it and I tried to write it the quote is meant to catch the spirit of his statement, not every word.
“[The issue of justification in Galatians is ] Not just a nationalistic issue. It is a fundamental issue of how you are accepted before God, how you are justified. What makes you acceptable before God? It is the whole flow of the argument. And to think you can simplify the issue to just being “one people before God” so as to eliminate boundary markers and have a unified church is not completely wrong, but it is putting the focus in the wrong place. It’s not listening close enough to the text. It’s not putting the emphasis where Paul puts the emphasis, which brings me to another exegetical observation. Are you familiar with Gordon Fee’s quite magnificent book God’s Empowering Spirit? It’s a major treatment of the Holy Spirit in Paul. What he does is work through all the Pauline passages on the Holy Spirit and then puts them all together. Last week I was in Australia speaking in at a conference. The subject of the conference was the Holy Spirit in Acts. I worked through the big passages in Acts, and all the small ones so that I worked through every place in Acts where the Holy Spirit is mentioned. After I preached through it I said to myself, “I think what I’ve done, in one sense, is accurate, but in another sense, without meaning to is that I just distorted the whole book of Acts.” Because I don’t think Luke sat down and said “I’m going to write about the Holy Spirit.” That’s not Luke’s theme as he is writing Acts. It is merely a supporting theme. It is interwoven throughout the book to support the primary theme. So you may preach on the Holy Spirit in Acts in every situation and be absolutely correct in what you say about the Holy Spirit, but miss the point of Acts. You get a distorted picture of Acts. So I spent the last two talks to deconstruct my sermons to show how they were supportive of the heartbeat of Acts, which is the extension of the gospel. To speak of the Holy Spirit of Acts is a way to quietly distort the book of Acts if you are not careful….you are foregrounding that which is in the background, and backgrounding that which is the foreground.”
You can listen to the lectures at http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/category/courses/a/series/the_new_perspective_on_paul/
“[The issue of justification in Galatians is ] Not just a nationalistic issue. It is a fundamental issue of how you are accepted before God, how you are justified. What makes you acceptable before God? It is the whole flow of the argument. And to think you can simplify the issue to just being “one people before God” so as to eliminate boundary markers and have a unified church is not completely wrong, but it is putting the focus in the wrong place. It’s not listening close enough to the text. It’s not putting the emphasis where Paul puts the emphasis, which brings me to another exegetical observation. Are you familiar with Gordon Fee’s quite magnificent book God’s Empowering Spirit? It’s a major treatment of the Holy Spirit in Paul. What he does is work through all the Pauline passages on the Holy Spirit and then puts them all together. Last week I was in Australia speaking in at a conference. The subject of the conference was the Holy Spirit in Acts. I worked through the big passages in Acts, and all the small ones so that I worked through every place in Acts where the Holy Spirit is mentioned. After I preached through it I said to myself, “I think what I’ve done, in one sense, is accurate, but in another sense, without meaning to is that I just distorted the whole book of Acts.” Because I don’t think Luke sat down and said “I’m going to write about the Holy Spirit.” That’s not Luke’s theme as he is writing Acts. It is merely a supporting theme. It is interwoven throughout the book to support the primary theme. So you may preach on the Holy Spirit in Acts in every situation and be absolutely correct in what you say about the Holy Spirit, but miss the point of Acts. You get a distorted picture of Acts. So I spent the last two talks to deconstruct my sermons to show how they were supportive of the heartbeat of Acts, which is the extension of the gospel. To speak of the Holy Spirit of Acts is a way to quietly distort the book of Acts if you are not careful….you are foregrounding that which is in the background, and backgrounding that which is the foreground.”
You can listen to the lectures at http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/category/courses/a/series/the_new_perspective_on_paul/
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Today's Devotional
Part of my daily walk with God is to do a quick devotional outside of my biblical text I am currently studying. Currently my quick devotional is taking me through Romans. Though meant to be personal I wanted to share today's for those who might benefit.
Romans 4:6-8 Likewise, David also speaks of the blessing of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
Of interest is the way this text is translated. ESV makes verse seven past tense, but verse eight future tense. NASB, HCSB, NIV, NET all make verse seven present and eight future. The Greek is actually aorist in both verses. However, the future sense in verse eight reveals how it should be translated. The forgiveness happens in the past but has ongoing effects even into the future. And the there is a wonderful promise here in verse eight. The Lord will never charge those who have faith credited to their account with sin. The Greek has the double emphatic negative ensuring us that in “no way, no how” is this going to happen.
And here we are confronted with another truth of Scripture. Those who are children of God are happy. We may not be happy every second of every day, but the overarching theme is a great theme of joy and happiness. It should be of great concern if, as Christians, we walk around sulky or depressed. So not only do we have places in Scripture that demand our happiness (i.e. Delight yourselves in the Lord – Psalm 37:4) but we also have places in Scripture that promise our happiness. Here is a gut check. Do we get the immense forgiveness that has been given to us? Do we understand that by justification we are declared innocent? Do we recognize that we are indeed the great inheritors of the most prized possession ever offered to humanity? Here we hold in our possession the greatest of all treasures – a righted relationship with our Lord and Savior – the Almighty, Invisible God and Creator of the Universe.
Praise be to the glory of His Name
May His People praise His Acclaim
High above His creation is His throne
His creatures he does not leave alone
For mankind’s inheritance is shame
Preserving righteousness God’s aim
God credited faith to call our own
By Jesus’ death for our sins to atone
Declared innocent our hearts aflame
Praise be to the glory of His Name
Romans 4:6-8 Likewise, David also speaks of the blessing of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
How happy those whose lawless acts are forgiven and whose sins are covered! How
happy the man whom the Lord will never charge with sin!
Of interest is the way this text is translated. ESV makes verse seven past tense, but verse eight future tense. NASB, HCSB, NIV, NET all make verse seven present and eight future. The Greek is actually aorist in both verses. However, the future sense in verse eight reveals how it should be translated. The forgiveness happens in the past but has ongoing effects even into the future. And the there is a wonderful promise here in verse eight. The Lord will never charge those who have faith credited to their account with sin. The Greek has the double emphatic negative ensuring us that in “no way, no how” is this going to happen.
And here we are confronted with another truth of Scripture. Those who are children of God are happy. We may not be happy every second of every day, but the overarching theme is a great theme of joy and happiness. It should be of great concern if, as Christians, we walk around sulky or depressed. So not only do we have places in Scripture that demand our happiness (i.e. Delight yourselves in the Lord – Psalm 37:4) but we also have places in Scripture that promise our happiness. Here is a gut check. Do we get the immense forgiveness that has been given to us? Do we understand that by justification we are declared innocent? Do we recognize that we are indeed the great inheritors of the most prized possession ever offered to humanity? Here we hold in our possession the greatest of all treasures – a righted relationship with our Lord and Savior – the Almighty, Invisible God and Creator of the Universe.
Praise be to the glory of His Name
May His People praise His Acclaim
High above His creation is His throne
His creatures he does not leave alone
For mankind’s inheritance is shame
Preserving righteousness God’s aim
God credited faith to call our own
By Jesus’ death for our sins to atone
Declared innocent our hearts aflame
Praise be to the glory of His Name
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Free Audio Download of Desiring God by John Piper
A great book and now a free audio version, but for this month (November) only.
Download - christianaudio.com
Download - christianaudio.com
Thursday, October 15, 2009
John Piper and his 30 years of ministry
Justin Taylor's blog yesterday is worth reading. I was pointed there by another elder at Hanley Road Church. The address is: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/.
Approaching 30 years in one pastorate is God exulting. Of course, so is an itinerant ministry such as Paul's missionary journeys. It is all about being God led and God satisfied. A few personal thoughts on John Piper and God's use of him in my life.
There is no person alive today who has more influence upon my journey, whom I have not personally known, than John Piper. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the biggest (at least as I understand them now) follow:
1. God's glory from beginning to the end of Scripture is highlighted in a fluid way in John Piper's sermons, thoughts and writings. Impressively, this high view of God's glory is balanced both in detail exegetical work, as well as broader summaries of biblical texts. In this respect, JPiper has shown balance and, in my estimation, harmony with Scripture on a whole as to God's ultimate and penultimate purposes.
2. Learning how to ask the hard questions of Scripture. This truly is a skill that is all too often lacking in our personal lives. As a pastor to other pastors I would say that this is one of the skills that is imperative for us to refine. Part of the issue is we don't even know that we are not asking the hard questions. God has given us a grace-drenched example to learn from. However, learning how to ask the hard questions is actually an outcropping of another skill. This skill is learning to have in-depth conversation with God concerning his word through memorization, marinating, meditation, praying and returning again and again to the text prior to preaching/teaching it. I have found that when there are not other believers to talk things out with that pen and paper (journaling the verses) works tremendously. He shows us how to be people serious about God's Holy Word.
3. As a pastor, recognizing that your flock will most likely go only as deep as you go in searching Scripture and that your flock will only commit as much as you have committed. The military mantra "Lead by Example" is true here and Piper exemplifies it. It starts with (2) in that as a pastor I must always address what God is saying to me from Scripture. This happens with the journaling. When confronted with the Great I AM - I must ask the hard, guiding question "Am I?" Am I being humble? Am I fighting for my faith? Am I self-righteous? Am I seeking salvation through works of the law? Am I desiring to be a teacher of the law although I don't understand what it is saying? Am I bankrupt in heart? Am I turning to God as my refuge? Am I giving God praise and exultation? Am I? Am I? Am I? JPiper's life exemplifies this. This is why I praise God for this man's example.
4. Arcing - while not his originally he has brought it into a more prominent view. What a wonderful interpretive tool as we labor of God's Word. It is hard, but we mine for gold. We say to God that he is our teacher and we are very interested in what he has to teach us - all of it. It is hard - it is labor intensive, it is hard to understand at points - but we want to know because it is God who tells us. We don't want to be people who tell God that even though he thinks it important for us to know that we just aren't interested or that it just is not worth the struggle. But how to do it? Arcing is a tool that helps in our pursuit of coming to terms with what God has revealed to us.
So, Praise be to God for how he works in people as exemplified in John Piper's life.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Amazing Hubble Pic
The Butterfly Nebula, whose wings expand over two light years, as taken by the Hubble Telescope recently. This is an obstensive example of absolute beauty.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Rebekah's First Joke
While the actors themselves may not be real, the story they are depicting is. Any representations that match the voices in your head is entirely on purpose, which means its not random, so it is radomlessness at its finest. Enjoy!
Monday, August 31, 2009
In the Blink of an Eye
The fourth anniversary of Katrina has arrived with little fanfare. There is no doubt that this Hurricane left its indelible signature on the lives of many. Many, but not all. There are few events that instantaneously change us all. I got to thinking about events that occurred in my lifetime with immediate impact universally - or at least nationally. One second we are all one way - and the next second we are all dramatically different. For me, this is the "In the Blink of an Eye" category of life. You blink - and you're changed.
These events are important not just because of their universal impact, but also because of the lessons that accompany the reality that these events can - and do - occur. Lest we fall into trappings of white picket fences, surround sound stereos, towering litany of books or the blue flashing light of our TV screens we must remember that much of life is outside of our control - and the purpose of life is so much more than creature comforts.
In reflection, I have can think of three events that I think fit into this category of instantaneous impact. There are some peripheral events that, while major, did not get into this category. Some examples of those that didn't make it would be both Iraqi wars and the election of Barack Obama - although I admit that Obama's election carries so many implications that it was tempting to put him my "blink of an eye" category. My litmus test basically was if I had to think about it in a prolonged fashion then it didn't meet the criteria. Any split second event of immediate global ramifications should be abundantly obvious at the mere mention of its name.
"Blink of an Eye" level events occurring in my lifetime:1. The Challenger Tragedy: Of my three, I think this one is the only one that may not fit into the category. However, the first thing I think when I consider this event is that everyone knows where they were when it happened. I was in fifth grade, in Mrs. Gaines class, watching Challenger take off with her teacher in tow.
2. The Berlin Wall: What more needs to be said? This iconic wall's destruction with the upheaval of 
communism in the USSR closely following is momentous.
communism in the USSR closely following is momentous.3. 9/11: One second I'm in class trying to earn a degree, the next I'm on my phone with my parents across the ocean trying to figure it out.
Have I missed any? Did I get these wrong? Let me know...
Friday, August 21, 2009
College Football = SEC DOMINATION
Just Remember that 4 of the last 6 National Champions are SEC Baby! Oh, yeah and if Auburn got their shot in '04 it would be 5 of the last 6.
Date Opponent Time (CT)
Sat, Sep 5 @ Washington 9:30 PM
Sat, Sep 12 Vanderbilt 6:00 PM
Sat, Sep 19 Louisiana-Lafayette 6:00 PM
Sat, Sep 26 @ Mississippi State 12:00 Noon
Sat, Oct 3 @ (13) Georgia 11:00 AM
Sat, Oct 10 (1) Florida 7:00 PM
Sat, Oct 24 Auburn 7:00 PM
Sat, Oct 31 Tulane 7:00 PM
Sat, Nov 7 @ (6) Alabama 12:00 Noon
Sat, Nov 14 Louisiana Tech 7:00 PM
Sat, Nov 21 @ (14) Mississippi 12:00 Noon
Sat, Nov 28 Arkansas 7:00 PM
My Rankings for how the SEC will play out in 2009:
1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. Florida
4. Mississippi State
5. Georgia
6. Tennessee
7. Arkansas
8. South Carolina
9. Auburn
10. Ol Miss
11. Vanderbuilt
12. Kentucky
Date Opponent Time (CT)
Sat, Sep 5 @ Washington 9:30 PM
Sat, Sep 12 Vanderbilt 6:00 PM
Sat, Sep 19 Louisiana-Lafayette 6:00 PM
Sat, Sep 26 @ Mississippi State 12:00 Noon
Sat, Oct 3 @ (13) Georgia 11:00 AM
Sat, Oct 10 (1) Florida 7:00 PM
Sat, Oct 24 Auburn 7:00 PM
Sat, Oct 31 Tulane 7:00 PM
Sat, Nov 7 @ (6) Alabama 12:00 Noon
Sat, Nov 14 Louisiana Tech 7:00 PM
Sat, Nov 21 @ (14) Mississippi 12:00 Noon
Sat, Nov 28 Arkansas 7:00 PM
My Rankings for how the SEC will play out in 2009:
1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. Florida
4. Mississippi State
5. Georgia
6. Tennessee
7. Arkansas
8. South Carolina
9. Auburn
10. Ol Miss
11. Vanderbuilt
12. Kentucky
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Missouri & Health Care Reform
For those of you in the show-me state this is a great resource. Show-Me Institute is a Think Tank that is focused on public policy from an economic perspective. This link below is an important place to check out as we all consider what reform needs to occur in health care. While this is written with Missouri in mind, its applications/implications are national in scope.
http://www.showmeinstitute.org/publication/id.205/pub_detail.asp
http://www.showmeinstitute.org/publication/id.205/pub_detail.asp
Monday, August 10, 2009
Faith and Inaction
Based on discussions I had with some after our last two weeks' sermons I wanted to send this link to y'all for a sermon I just listened to this morning that directly interacts with our discussions of faith and availability.
Click here to listen.
Click here to listen.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
A Chronology of Cars
Life markers are a wonderful tool to map out our personal journeys. Things such as a weddings, birth dates, graduation dates, and even Hurricane Katrina. We also have a chronology of cars. Our chronology is much like the Jews' chronology in that God says "Remember!" such as "Remember when you were slaves in the Land of Egypt and I delivered you." Unfortunately human nature, especially as it relates to God, is one of amnesia. It is hard to remember the blessings of bygone days as today's worries crowd and vie for your attention. This is part of our family's effort to remember.
4. 1990 Toyota Camry - Date Given: September 2005; going to a charity soon. After Katrina we thought we had lost our Cavalier (which Rachelle bought before we got married - it is the last car we bought and that was over a decade ago!). A wonderful family in Richmond heard about this and gave us their son's car (he got another one).
6. HA! HA! You thought I was done! WRONG! 1998 Chevy S10 - Date Given: March 2009; returned in July 2009 to its joyful and gracious owners. This last time we were in desperate need for a vehicle as the Toyota finally conked out on us. With a penance to our name, and a job that requires a presentable, drivable vehicle a couple loaned us their practically brand new S10 for almost five months (it had less than 13,000 miles on it when we borrowed it). Did I mention I had a hit-n-run while driving this truck. Well - it was like new. :-(
Being burden to attend seminary, we acted in faith starting in 1999-2000 despite our pockets being empty. Since then and because of our incredible lack of monetary funds, it has pleased God to provide us five vehicles in a row to meet our needs (Matthew 6:25-34). All five vehicles given to us. Our disclaimer is that God does not owe it to us to provide our vehicles. This idea would be disingenuous to all those believers who are starving throughout the world today and in centuries past. We recognize it as God's pure mercy and grace and it amazes us as a family as much today as in days past.
All my statisticians out there do the math for me of the likelihood of one family being given five vehicles in a row - all running well. I think your equation will point to a supernatural agent.
Here is our chronology:
1. 1998 Mazda 626 - Date Given: August 2000; died in car crash .Given by a family leaving to do missionary work in Romania for a year. Even though they were coming back to the states they gave this car to me after hearing about my need of a vehicle in order to move to N'awlins to begin Seminary. I received the vehicle a few days before I had to leave.
2. 1988 Ford Esc
ort - Date Given: 2002; given to charity. While in seminary, someone ran a red light and slammed into the Mazda leaving me without a car. After our marriage, Rachelle and I survived with one car for a while. However, being a pastor intern began to pose problems to our schedule of school and work along side ministry. I asked a wonderful couple at our church about the possibility of buying their Ford Escort. The following Sunday they gave it to us knowing we really didn't have the money to purchase it.
ort - Date Given: 2002; given to charity. While in seminary, someone ran a red light and slammed into the Mazda leaving me without a car. After our marriage, Rachelle and I survived with one car for a while. However, being a pastor intern began to pose problems to our schedule of school and work along side ministry. I asked a wonderful couple at our church about the possibility of buying their Ford Escort. The following Sunday they gave it to us knowing we really didn't have the money to purchase it. 3. 1999 Pontiac Mo
ntana - Date Given: 2004; still with us! A few years and two children later we discovered a real problem as the Escort formed an oil leak. Our problem? Packing our children (with car seats) and other items every weekend to go an hour and half a way to do ministry in a small rural church in Louisiana. Some of our wonderful friends parted with this wonderful van; although, they had real use of it too with seven kids! This van continues to be an amazing blessing to us to this day. We're praying for another ten years from it.
ntana - Date Given: 2004; still with us! A few years and two children later we discovered a real problem as the Escort formed an oil leak. Our problem? Packing our children (with car seats) and other items every weekend to go an hour and half a way to do ministry in a small rural church in Louisiana. Some of our wonderful friends parted with this wonderful van; although, they had real use of it too with seven kids! This van continues to be an amazing blessing to us to this day. We're praying for another ten years from it.
4. 1990 Toyota Camry - Date Given: September 2005; going to a charity soon. After Katrina we thought we had lost our Cavalier (which Rachelle bought before we got married - it is the last car we bought and that was over a decade ago!). A wonderful family in Richmond heard about this and gave us their son's car (he got another one).
5. 1998 Honda Accord - Date Given: July 2009; still breaking in this speedster. Pray I won't get a ticket. :-) I admit that I've always wanted a Honda. We had our brothers and sisters advocating for us before God's throne room. A very dear family to us had an interesting conversation recently. One said she thought she would just donate her car this year instead of using it as a trade-in for a new car. Here we are driving in a car that provides more than we need. Thank you God!
6. HA! HA! You thought I was done! WRONG! 1998 Chevy S10 - Date Given: March 2009; returned in July 2009 to its joyful and gracious owners. This last time we were in desperate need for a vehicle as the Toyota finally conked out on us. With a penance to our name, and a job that requires a presentable, drivable vehicle a couple loaned us their practically brand new S10 for almost five months (it had less than 13,000 miles on it when we borrowed it). Did I mention I had a hit-n-run while driving this truck. Well - it was like new. :-(Here is our chronology, meant to encourage and embolden you in your walk with the Lord. We look to it as a reminder as we walk in faith into a future where there are many questions concerning from where our provisions will come. God has already told you - the world is his and all that is in it. Like you, we stand on the edge of eternity looking forward. Little tastes such as this, while completely incomparable to the infinite joy we will experience and grow in days eternal, still give us a view to that which we exult in and desire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
