Monthly Archives: February 2010

Evolution

Two Atheist Academics Take On Darwinism

10 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

If I could count how many times I’ve been told that only ignorant, fundamentalist Christians doubt the truth of Darwinian evolution, I would be a rich man!  Alas, the worst nightmare of Darwin defenders occurs when non-Christians, and non-theists at that, write books criticizing Darwin’s ideas.

In their new book, What Darwin Got Wrong, Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini do exactly that.  I have often told people that my doubts about Darwin have little to do with my religious beliefs, but from what I know of science.  Here are two atheists that likewise find the science to be lacking.

Salon.com interviewed Fodor recently and asked several provocative questions.  In one exchange, they ask Fodor about the standard evolutionary story about giraffes evolving long necks because they needed to adapt to food high up in trees.  Here is Fodor’s response:

The inference runs that there’s this creature that has a long neck, so this creature was selected for having a long neck. That inference is clearly invalid. A creature that has a long neck may have that neck because a different trait was selected, and the long neck came along with it.

And in a sense, there are no such things as traits. The environment selects creatures. Animals can have long necks and toenails, but if you try to break such creatures apart into traits and you say, OK, “What selected this trait?” and, “What selected that trait?” you’ve made a mistake right from the beginning. The disintegration of the organism into traits is itself a spurious undertaking. Biologists have said for a long time that organisms aren’t like Swiss apples, you can’t tap them on a table and have them fall apart into distinct wedges. Selection is operating on whole organisms.

In another exchange the interviewer asks what the implications are for Darwinism being wrong.  Fodor answers:

If this is true, then we need to rethink the implications of Darwinism. Maybe the right question to ask is not what environmental variables are doing selection, but what kinds of complexes are they selecting on. One sees, even without God, how this Darwinian story could turn out to be radically wrong. You could see a massive failure of the evolutionary project, because wrong assumptions were made.

Again, these guys aren’t fundamentalist creationists, but they recognize that the Darwinian story of the origin of species just does not work.  There are far too many holes in it.  Make sure you read the entire interview with Fodor.  It’s well worth it.

Atheism, Religion, Skeptics, Truth

Are Christians Arrogant for Believing They Are Right?

44 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

One of the most common accusations hurled at Christians is arrogance.  If Christians believe that only they are right about who God is, that is arrogant.

Usually, but not always, I hear this accusation from atheists.  They say something like, “If you think that the Christian God is the only true God, then you are excluding the rest of world who believe in other gods.  You are also excluding those who don’t believe in any god.  That betrays an incredible arrogance and narrow-mindedness.”

Typically these kinds of statements put Christians on the defensive and a few of us, unfortunately, will even claim that all religious concepts of God are basically the same so as not to seem narrow-minded.  After all, who wants to be seen as arrogant?

But there’s a problem with this accusation, especially for atheists.  Most religion surveys indicate that there are about 2 billion Christians in the world, which is about 1/3 of the world’s population.  That means that about 4 billion people don’t believe in the Christian God, or 66% of the world.

If we look at the number of atheists, those who deny that any kind of god exists, it’s probably around 150 million people, or 2.5% of the world population (see this link for data).  Even if we double that number, we get 300 million people.  That means that approximately 5.7 billion people are wrong about the existence of god, or 95% of all the people living in the world.

Now who is calling who arrogant?  If anybody is exclusive, if anybody is narrow-minded, it is atheists far more so than Christians.  As an atheist, you have to believe that 95% of all people alive are wrong about the existence of a higher power, a god or gods.  In fact, if numbers are how we determine arrogance, Christians are the least arrogant of any religious group because they have the most adherents!

Do I really believe atheists are arrogant for saying that no gods exist, a belief that contradicts 95% of the rest of the world?  No, of course not.  Truth claims are narrow, by definition, because they rule out falsehoods.  Numbers don’t determine truth, and it’s certainly possible that atheists are right, despite their relatively small numbers.  But that means that the accusation that Christians are arrogant also needs to be put to rest.  The atheist claiming that Christians are arrogant is sawing off the limb he is sitting on.

Let’s drop these silly accusations of arrogance and get back to reasonable and rational discussions about the existence or non-existence of God.  Can I get an atheist “Amen?”

Human Nature

Is Man’s Nature Fixed? Part 2

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Constrained or Unconstrained Vision?  Which is it?

In my view, the more biblically sound vision must be the constrained – for one simple reason: original sin.

The Bible teaches that every human being is born with a sinful nature, that we are not born with a clean moral slate, as the unconstrained vision claims.  The first human, Adam, sinned, and his sin has passed down to all of us.  “Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Rom 5:12).

King David lamented, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5).

The apostle Paul ended any debate about the sinful nature of man when he said, “There is no one righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10) and “there is no one who does good, not even one” (3:12).

Even after a person receives Christ, they will still struggle with sin until they die.  It is only after death, when a person is glorified (their salvation is completed and they are free from the desire to sin), that the unconstrained vision holds.  The unconstrained vision, then, can only be actualized in heaven, the place where man finally acts only for the good.

While we live on this earth, Christians recognize the sin that penetrates every man’s heart, and we are thus deeply skeptical of the intellectual and moral potential of human beings.  The ability of fallen human beings to reason their way to moral solutions for all mankind is impossible, under the Christian view.

Even though Christians recognize that man’s nature is sinful, we still fight for the good, to the best of our abilities.  We are still commanded to make this world the best it can be.  There is no sense of giving up, but there is a sense of realism, that man-made political solutions will never deliver the utopia that the unconstrained vision sees as a real possibility.

Human Nature, Polls

Is Man’s Nature Fixed? Part 1

6 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt


Recently I read an incredibly thought-provoking book written by Thomas Sowell, called A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles.  In this book, Sowell traces out two conflicting visions of the nature of man, the constrained  and the unconstrained.  Sowell argues that these two visions have been at odds for centuries and the conflict between them lies at the root of most of our political, moral, judicial, and economic ideological battles.

The constrained vision sees human nature as fixed.  Man is egocentric and morally limited.  In addition, his intelligence and ability to reason are also limited by his nature.  Those with the constrained vision do not so much seek explanations for why most men are self-interested and morally fragile, but they seek explanations for why the rare man seems to act unselfishly.

The constrained vision accepts man for who he is and seeks to build incentives to channel man’s imperfect nature in positive directions.  These incentives rely heavily on traditions and family, with government playing a limited role.  Placing power in the hands of the intellectual and moral elite is a great mistake, under the constrained view, as human nature inevitably leads to corruption when power is concentrated.

The unconstrained vision sees human nature as pliable and perfectible.  Man can overcome his egocentricity through intellect and reason.  This view is optimistic that man is ever rising higher and higher in his capacity to act morally, in the best interests of all mankind.  Those who hold the unconstrained vision are perplexed as to why so much of humankind is egocentric and morally corrupt.  They conclude that societal institutions are to blame because man’s nature cannot be to blame – it is corrupted by outside forces.

The unconstrained vision rejects the current state of man as a self-interested and intellectually stunted creature.  It seeks to lift human morality and intellect by asking the best and the brightest to devise and implement solutions to our shortcomings.  We are well served by giving power and influence to those few who have advanced intellectually and morally further than the rest of us, the true exemplars and visionaries.  It is only they who can lead the way.  Finally, human reason trumps tradition, which should be discarded when it no longer serves any obvious purpose.

Sowell argues that those people with the constrained vision tend to line up on the same side of most political, judicial, economic, and moral issues (e.g., size of government, judicial activism, capitalism, gay marriage).  Likewise for those with the unconstrained vision.

How do you see human nature?  Do you find yourself leaning more toward the constrained or unconstrained vision?  Make your choice in the poll below, and as always, please leave comments about your choice, if you care to.

In a couple days, I will weigh in with my viewpoint and explain why I think one of these visions is more biblical than the other.

Love, Marriage

A Valentine's Day Post

1 Comment

Post Author: Jennifer Pratt

On Valentine’s Day, it seems fitting for me (Jennifer) to write about how to have a secure and successful marriage.  Billy and I have been married for 15 years (we have been a couple for almost 20 years).  I can honestly say that each year gets better!  When I think back to our first few years of marriage, I cringe.   We had no idea how to make a marriage work.

Recently, I read a book entitled The Marriage Code by Bill and Pam Farrel.  Reading this book helped me to understand why we struggled during our first few years of marriage.  First and foremost, the book states that the best way to have a healthy and vibrant marriage is to have a growing, intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.  Fifteen years ago, Billy and I did not have an intimate, growing relationship with Jesus Christ.  We were Christians but we were more concerned with pleasing ourselves than with a growing relationship with Jesus.  To put it mildly, we were both very selfish.

Mistake #2 in our relationship was the notion that saying “I do” was enough to make our marriage successful.  As The Marriage Code puts it, “You have to know the access code that keeps the heart-to-heart connection to your spouse alive and well.  Knowing your mate’s code–the core needs he or she longs to have met–will give you ready access into the other’s heart.”  The problem was that Billy and I were so selfish (we were ruled by our flesh) that we didn’t take the time to figure out what the other person’s needs were.  All we did was complain that our needs weren’t being met.

Here is an example of a username and password that I should use in order to access Billy’s heart:

Username: Wife

Password: Success

I need to create an environment that makes Billy feel successful in our relationship.  In the early days of our marriage, I did not realize that if Billy did not think that he could be successful in our marriage then he would just stop trying.  He needs to get the message from me, “I love the way you live and I love the way you love me.”  If he gets that message, his heart will be drawn towards me, and he will gain confidence in our relationship.

Here is one of the access codes to my heart:

Username: Husband

Password: Security

One of a woman’s greatest needs is to know that she is loved unconditionally.  I need to know that Billy is going to love me no matter the circumstances and that our relationship is secure.

Mistake #3 in our marriage was understanding that men and women are different.  I know this sounds obvious but even though we knew this intellectually it is not how we lived.  We have different needs and we express love very differently.  Reading marriage books such as The Marriage Code remind me that I have to put effort into finding out how to access the code to Billy’s heart.

The bottom line is that I know marriage is hard.  Honestly, Billy and I would be divorced if it wasn’t for our relationship with Jesus Christ.  Through an intimate, growing relationship with Jesus, we both learned to put each other’s needs ahead of our own.  We both made a decision that we would love each other unconditionally and that we would work to find the “access codes” to each other’s hearts.  I must confess that some days are better than other days. We don’t have a perfect marriage, but overall it is a successful marriage relationship.  I want to encourage you to seek hard after God and keep working on your marriage.  It is so worth it!!

Book of Mormon, Mormonism

Mormon Challenge

1 Comment

Post Author:  Darrell

Brigham City, Utah’s Living Hope Ministries has produced several great videos on Mormonism, including DNA vs. The Book of Mormon and The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon.  If you are looking for some material to share with an LDS neighbor or friend, I would highly recommend both of these videos. 

Thanks to a post on Jessica’s blog, I recently discovered that Living Hope is in the final stages of completing their newest video:  The Bible vs. Joseph Smith.  I can’t wait to see their fine work on this one.  Here is a link to their website and a clip from the video.  Check it out!

http://mormonchallenge.com/index.html

Darrell

Creation Ex Nihilo, General Apologetics, Philosophy

Is An Actual Infinite Coherent? Part 2

6 Comments

Post Author:  Darrell

In my last post I discussed how an actual infinite number of things is incoherent.  How does this apply to the universe, time, and Mormonism?

The Mormon Church denies creation ex nihilo, choosing instead to teach creation ex materia, the position that God organized the universe from pre-existing matter.  In fact, Mormonism takes this position even a step further, teaching that matter, the stuff everything is made of, has always existed.

Time and matter are relative, i.e., one cannot exist without the other (see Einstein’s theory of relativity).  Therefore, if matter has always existed, time has always existed.  Time is the succession of moments; in otherwords, one moment following another makes up time.  If time has always existed, prior to today there existed an actual infinite amount of time.  As a result, there were an actual infinite number of moments prior to today.

However, an actual infinite number of things is incoherent, and whatever is incoherent is impossible.  Therefore, an actual infinite number of moments prior to today, as well as the Mormon belief of the eternal existence of matter and the universe are all impossible.

Darrell

Creation Ex Nihilo, General Apologetics, Philosophy

Is An Actual Infinite Coherent? Part 1

38 Comments

Post Author:  Darrell

In short, no.   The story of Hilbert’s Hotel helps to demonstrate this fact.  It goes like this…  Let’s say we have a hotel that has an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests; as a result, the hotel is full.  If a prospective guest walks in and asks for a room, can he check in?  Since there are an infinite number of rooms, the answer must be “Yes.”  How about if an infinite number of guests arrive wanting to check in.  Can they?  Again, despite the fact that the hotel already has an infinite number of guests, since there are an infinite number of rooms, guests can always check in – even an infinite number more.

Now, let’s say that the guests in all of the odd-numbered rooms check out, how many guests are left?  There are an infinite number of total rooms.  However, there are also an infinite number of odd-numbered rooms, the guests of which checked out, and there are also an infinite number of even-numbered rooms, the ones still left occupied.  So in reality, there are still an infinite number of guests left in the hotel even though an infinite number of guests just checked out.  This means when you take an infinite away from an infinite, you still get an infinite.

Where does this leave us?  Even though Hilbert’s Hotel has an infinite number of guests and rooms, more rooms and guests can always be added.  In addition, no matter how many guests check out there will always be an infinite number of guests left.  As a result, the hotel could have a sign which reads, “Hilbert’s Hotel: Always full, Yet Rooms Are Always Available.”

This illustration points out how an actual infinite is incoherent.  In an actual infinite the whole and the parts are always equal.  You can take half away and still have an infinite, or you can add more and still have the same amount – an infinite.  However, in reality, a part can never equal a whole.  For example, two is part of four (half of it to be exact). Thus, two can never equal four.

Is there any infinite that is coherent?  Yes, a potential infinite.   A potential infinite is always finite and the whole is always greater than the parts.  In a potential infinite you can always add more, but it will never become actually infinite.  For example, let’s say you have 100 Jelly Beans in a pile.  You can always add more Jelly Beans to the pile.  In fact, you can continue to add Jelly Beans and never reach a maximum.  As a result, you could say that the pile you are creating as you add more is potentially infinite.  It is not an actual infinite because no matter how many you add, there are always a finite number of Jelly Beans in the pile.  However, it is potentially infinite because more can always be added.

In the next post, we will look at how the concept of an actual infinite applies to the universe, time, creation, and Mormonism.  Stick around.

Darrell

Polls, Will of God

How Should We Determine God’s Will for Our Lives?

11 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

As Christians we all agree that we want to follow God’s will for our lives, but there are two general approaches to following God’s will that I’ve seen in evangelicalism.

The first approach operates under the premise that God has a specific will for each and every one of our actions and decisions, and that we are obligated to discover what that specific will is.

The second approach operates under the premise that God only specifically wills that we obey his commands as revealed in the Bible, and on issues where the Bible does not speak, we use wisdom.

A couple examples may illuminate.

Let’s say that you are a Christian man looking for a spouse.  You have come to know three wonderful and single Christian ladies and you are wondering which one you should pursue for marriage.

If you are a follower of the first approach, you believe that God has one, and only one, of these women chosen for you.  It is your duty to discover which one of these women he has chosen in order to stay in his perfect will for your life.  If you choose wrongly, you will be outside of his will for your life.

If you are a follower of the second approach, you feel free to pursue any of these three ladies for marriage.  You believe that God will be pleased with any of the three women, as long as you choose wisely.

A second example.  Let’s say that you are a looking for a new job.  You have job offers from three companies.  How should you decide?

If you are a follower of the first approach, you believe that God has one, and only one, of these jobs chosen for you.  It is your duty to discover which one of these three jobs he has chosen in order to stay in his perfect will for your life..  If you choose wrongly, you will be outside of his will for your life.

If you are a follower of the second approach, you feel free to pursue any of these three jobs, as long as there is nothing unbiblical about any of these companies (e.g., they produce pornography or something like that).  You believe that God will be pleased with any of the three jobs, as long as you choose wisely.

Now, which of these two approaches do you believe is more biblical?  I have been purposely vague about some terms because I don’t want to lead you to a specific answer.  Just choose the approach you believe is more biblical by completing the poll below.

Also, please, if you can, cite some Scripture to support your choice in the comment section of this blog post.  We are going to be teaching on this topic at our church in a few weeks, and we would like to know what people think about it.  Thanks!!

Church History

A Very Brief Overview of the Crusades

6 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The Crusades are one of the most frequently mentioned historical events nowadays, but the vast majority of people who mention the Crusades know virtually nothing about them. In his excellent book Church History: An Essential Guide, Justo Gonzalez briefly outlines what happened in the Crusades and when they occurred.

First, the motivation. The most obvious motivation, according to Gonzalez, was religious, “to recover the Holy Land . . . from the ‘infidel’ Muslims; to go in pilgrimage to the holy places of Palestine; and to gain the remission of suffering in Purgatory that was promised the crusaders.”

There were also economic and political reasons. “The Crusades were a vast outpouring of landless peasants and equally landless nobles hoping to carve a better future in the lands to be taken from the Muslims.”

The First Crusade was proclaimed by Urban II in the year 1095. The first wave was composed mostly of peasants, but they were followed by military contingents in subsequent waves. In 1099 they actually took control of Jerusalem from the Muslims and formed the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. This Kingdom lasted until 1187 until Jerusalem was re-taken by the Muslims.

The Second Crusade was proclaimed in 1144 when the Muslim Turks took Edessa. According to Gonzalez, “Its military achievements were negligible.”

The Third Crusade was launched in response to the fall of Jerusalem in 1187. This crusade included the famous King Richard the Lion Hearted of England. Their only military achievement was the taking of Acre. However, King Richard did negotiate an agreement with Sultan Saladin to allow Christians to go in pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

“The Fourth Crusade was a disaster.” Instead of the crusaders reaching the Holy Land to fight Muslims, they sacked the Christian city of Constantinople in 1204, the seat of the Christian Byzantine Empire. It was formed into the Latin Empire of Constantinople until 1261 when the Byzantine Empire was reestablished.

“The Fifth Crusade (1219) attacked Egypt, but only managed to take the port of Damietta, which was retaken by the Arabs two years later.”

“The Sixth and Seventh were led by King Louis IX of France (Saint Louis), and had practically no results.” These occurred in 1248 and 1270.

There you have it, a very brief overview of the Crusades. If you want more information, there are certainly volumes written about the Crusades. One book, in particular, that has come highly recommended to me, is Christopher Tyerman’s God’s War: A New History of the Crusades.