Darwin Is Not the Antichrist

I recently read a book titled Living with Darwin by Philip Kitcher. I was pleasantly surprised to find that, while the book is written by a secular humanist with little interest in theistic religion, the author took the intelligent design arguments as science and countered them on their own grounds. While I do not necessarily agree with all of the assertions Kitcher provides, I appreciate legitimate, intellectual debate to the often overheated unreflective babbling that the topic typically elicits from both sides of the aisle. In response to this book, I feel it time for me to address the controversial but important topic of evolution with respect to Christianity. I openly admit to being less than orthodox on this subject, but all too often it seems that the visceral reactions elicited in both sides prevents either perspective from truly considering the other.

It seems that God enjoys communicating with us through stories. We are encouraged to spend time in scripture, which is at its core the story of God's interaction with humanity. Most of it is written in a narrative fashion reminiscent of Homeric epics or even modern literature, full of heroes, villains, battles and, when well written, difficult moral and existential dilemmas. Even Jesus seemed to prefer using parables to explain difficult ideas over any other instructional tool. When Jesus talks about the prodigal son, he's not talking about some guy he knew back in Nazareth. Is Jesus lying when he tells this story, or any of the other parables? I certainly don't think so. If our notion of truth is so shallow that only literal, a posteriori events can be utilized, eschewing all forms of metaphor and abstract reasoning, we need to back up and reconsider a whole mess of linguistic quandries.

Likewise, I see no reason not to call the book of Genesis, or at the very least the early part of Genesis, a parable. It explains in a reasonable way a great deal about humanity, though perhaps not in a way matching historical accuracy. This does not make it less true, though it makes it a different kind of true. Through my years as a Christian, I have realized that oftentimes my brothers and sisters become unreasonbly concerned with linguistic minutia when it comes to these type of arguments. I assert here that what is of the utmost importance is not history per se, but meaning. Genesis provides a meaningful if not historical notion of the creation of humans and our early development.

My own personal understanding of the Universe is as such: In the beginning was void, and God said "Let there be light," and all of the matter of the universe exploded forth from a tiny speck. The matter expanded and formed galaxies with uncounteed solar systems spread throughout. Eventually, our own system developed, with some gentle nudging of course. Just as life exists through the presence of God, the natural laws are likewise subject to divine influence though not typically to outright divine control. Eventually, the earth cooled sufficiently to allow for organic chemical arrangements, and with some divine inspiration, it was done. Over time, with some gentle nudging, these organic compounds formed cells, which multiplied and clumped together. Over time, these cells refined their operations, forming tissues and eventually outright organisms. Eventually, through millions of years, these organisms ended up as early humans, as God intended them to.

Throughout history, God has guided the natural processes He created to ensure the appropriate functioning of the world. How can we be so arrogant as to say that on the first day God had already decided what He wanted to do on the sixth? Perhaps humankind was not ordained from the very beginning of time, but seeing its development, God said "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness." Let us be careful not to assume too much about the intentions of God, save that they are for our best. I do wholly believe God was present throughout the history of the universe, gently guiding its development. I do not believe that evolution could have happened as it did without the constant influence of God, if only in the smallest ways. This, to me, is a much more impressive view of God than one who simply says "let there be" and there is. This is a God who desires His creation to understand itself, and who grants the freedom to be truly in His image - eternally creative.

Thought Wars

I was recently challenged to defend the legitimacy of Faith in light of the challenges of the modern science and the secular world. While making a series of arguments, a disconnect seemed to form. Those querying me began retorting using arguments which I thought I had just finished talking about, and I quickly realized I was obfuscating the matter more than illuminating it. As such, I felt the best course of action would be to attempt to put it down in writing. What follows may appear to be a jumbled conglomeration of thoughts, but I feel it may be of value to flatly state a number of my thoughts so that future (or past) posts may be clearer. I may choose to elaborate on each of these later, but for now, I will try to keep my comments concise.

I presuppose the existence of a reality outside of my own being. Many post-modern conceptions of epistemology (how we know what we know, what is knowledge) border on solipsism, which essentially means that since we can only view things from our own perspective, and can only truly prove our own personal existence, that only I am real. This is the most extreme expression of Protagoras' assertion that "man is the measure of all things." Not only is humanity the starting point, but I as an individual human am the central point of reality. In my view, any given person is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of existence: the universe existed before me, it will exist after me, and no part of it is dependent on me for existence.

Second, while imperfect, our senses are essentially accurate means by which we may learn about the universe we live in. Many would argue that even if there is a reality, our ability to comprehend it is so limited that any attempt to understand actual existence is futile. While I would be willing to concede that our understanding is somewhat limited, and we should be willing to admit that our knowledge is virtually never absolute, it seems to be senseless to abandon all hope of intelligent interaction with reality. A second corollary to this assertion is that our experiences may at times be as legitimate as the rules we assume to govern reality. The ancient Greeks generated general, consistent understandings of reality and then tried to fit all of their experience into that neat little pre-determined package. I would argue that experiences which do not fit within our understanding of reality should not be discarded as illusions, but instead used as potentially valuable information to re-evaluate our understanding of the world.

I acknowledge that faith and reason are different, though I do not believe they are incompatible or extensively contradictory. As reason is traditionally described, utilized and understood, I believe a fairly relevant graph of their implications would look something like this. Human reason can only run tangent to the leap of faith. Much of Greek philosophy gets to this point: acknowledging the existence of some ultimate concept which could be called god. However, the closest reason can come is the notion that there must be something greater than what we see around us. Only the Divine revealing the nature of the Divine to us allows us to pass into the realm of faith. I would like to note that this graph, and my explanation of it, is based on a common understanding of what constitutes reason that I do not necessarily consider entirely accurate. I consider the binary logic of the West, based on early Greek thought, painfully limiting. From my own personal experience, as someone who can claim a real conversion story, reason changes when synthesized with faith. Religious experiences, when millions of people around the world share them, are no less meaningful than experiences of what we consider traditional 'natural' phenomena.

On this topic of synthesis, I wholly embrace the dialectical synthesis of understanding. By this, I mean that most of the binary conflicts we encounter (i.e. reason versus faith, creativity versus law, etc.) can be melded together into a cogent concept which includes the essential components of both. This is not a mechanical process which simply takes half an half, resulting in a completely erratic and self-contradictory concept, but a wholly reconstructive event, fundamentally altering the entire argument. Kierkegaard discusses this in terms of human development, splitting our mentality into three stages, representing the dominant ideologies of the time. The first stage, the aesthetic, was the mid 19th century European romantic mentality, wherein life was a sensate activity. The Aesthetic stage focuses on individualism, creativity, autonomy and intense emotionalism. Stage two, called the Ethical, was applied to the more conservative legalism of the bourgeoisie. This stage emphasizes community, order, law and rationalism. Synthesizing these very distinct ideologies produces what Kierkegaard labeled the Religious. The icon of the Religious stage is Abraham, the accepted pinnacle of faith of all three major monotheistic religions of the world. When ordered to sacrifice his son Isaac, he brings his son to the appointed locations and prepares to kill the heir to his legacy. At the last moment, when he is about to strike the killing blow, God stops him, commands him to release his son and in place sacrifice a nearby ram. The question at hand: Did Abraham sin in his willingness to sacrifice his son? According to the aesthetic, there really is no such thing as sin, and while it may have been a painful experience which should not have been done, ultimate judgment would amount entirely to the suffering incurred on himself. The ethical would claim that the call to sacrifice the son was entirely sin, and at no point could be justified. Neither seems to describe the situation. Instead, the result seems to be much more complex than either. Murder is wrong, as is child sacrifice, but what is wrong is wrong at God's behest, and following God comes first. What is wrong is therefore a much more fluid concept, not fitting into either earlier scope. The fundamental problem with this type of synthesis is that the final product cannot be understood by anyone who does not hold the synthesis as their own outlook. Because the synthesis produces something that is fundamentally different than either original doctrine, it is generally incomprehensible to those who are trapped in the preceding dichotomy. Kierkegaard himself admitted that he did not feel he had made it to the Religious stage, instead remaining trapped in the Ethical. While the idea of dialectical synthesis is inherently elitist, this is not the intention of the system, but rather an unfortunate side effect.

I'll hopefully post a few more of these disjointed components shortly. Until then, God bless.

The Theory of Relativity

In an age of social deconstruction, religions are increasingly being lumped together into a single category and considered expressions of some primal human urge rather than a feasible assessment of ultimate reality. As such, religions become equally invalid, interchangeable, and typically reduced to little more than a code of ethics. For those of us who have escaped the seductive call of the post-modern world, I feel it important to bring back to the table some depth to the argument. In an age of religious relativism, where ought Christians stand?

First and foremost, adherents to any religious system should argue that all religions are far more than a guide to ethics. Yes, there is a component to virtually every religion which describes right-vs-wrong. However, there is so much more. Metaphysics, politics, economics, aesthetics, epistemology, psychology, and every other facet of human society is described. While the conflict between religious groups should be more in line with what each of them proclaim to be their appropriate modes of action (ie not by killing each other), to reduce religions to their ethics is precisely what makes them so easy to think of as interchangeable. Religions do not exist to serve a function, but to describe the organization of ultimate reality.

Second, similarities between religions should not be de-facto evidence for religion to stem from some common human need for something to instill social order. The fact that virtually all religions share certain stories, utilize similar ethics, and devise similar doctrines may just as easily be taken as evidence that there is such a thing as a single true religion. Some then try to argue that all religions are grasping at something true, but none have reached it, which is also a wholly unnecessary argument. While possible, it is no more likely to be logically true than to say one particular religion has it right and all others are approximating what it is trying to relay.

Third, very few religions consider themselves to be interchangeable. Buddhism and Islam make some references to other religions which put them in a fairly positive light, but even they are inclusivist at the absolute best (If a person considers himself/herself a Christian, but acts as a good Buddhist or Muslim, they may find enlightenment/salvation). While similar in many respects, even the most similar of traditions contain a plurality of important differences and nuances which make them incompatible with other traditions.

Brothers and Sisters, we live in a fallen world. Other religions provide a continuous barrage to shake loose our footing, and the secular world seeks to make the entire endeavor seem ludicrous. However, we cannot fall for an ideology of us versus them. Spiritual relativism is a powerful force, and one which continually increases its grip on modern society. That does not make it true. Christianity was designed to operate under persecution, and yet when it overcomes us to cry out with our last breath "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" (Acts 7:60)

What we must do as believers is simple. We must understand what we believe as far as it may be understood. We must understand what those who challenge us believe. Finally, and most importantly, we must understand that we are not infallible. We will be wrong. We will encounter arguments that seem impossible to challenge. We must not let the fact that we are not God stand in the way of our belief in Him and what He has done. Agree to disagree. Admit that you don't know when you don't know. Satan will win some battles, but evil shall never win the war.