As I’m learning a little about writing on a regular schedule, I feel the need to get my writing & sleeping habits under control. I’m going to take this week off to work on both of these. In the meantime, May the 4th be with you.
The Ambassador’s Guide to Understanding Homosexuality, by Alan Shlemon
This is a great little book; it is concise and manageable and something I think everyone should get their hands on. It took me about an hour to read the entire book; it’s only 60 pages long but is full of great information.
Part one, the introduction, deals with defining terms used in the book, and removes some of the “spin” both culture and Christians place on the issue.
Part Two deals with what the Bible teaches, what is at the heart of same sex attraction and gender identity, and deals with what scientific study has actually found on the issue.
Part Three is advice on how a Christian should respond to the issue.
Whether we like it or not this is a pervasive issue in our culture. We need to be able to respond with TRUTH AND COMPASSION. It seems that too often one is chosen over the other, both of those responses fail to communicate the truth about God to others. The truth is that God loves all of us, and he has a standard for our lives that is what is best for us, not what makes us happiest at the moment, not what guarantees us no pain, not what is easy, but what is ultimately best for us. This book is excellent for giving the information and strategy we all need.
I was supposed to post today, but I failed. Well, I failed up till now. Wow, I failed so much I even failed at failing. Oh well, I better make this quick, so I don’t fail even at that.
Last wednesday Mrs. Igniscient posted a recommendation of the book “What’s Your Worldview”. I followed through & behold, I also hold the Christian worldview (though I did briefly explore Pelagianism due to an ambiguity in the question that divided it from Christianity).
But I wanted to clarify, in case anyone actually reads this stuff, what a worldview is. A worldview is essentially how one understands reality & their place in it.
Ravi Zacharias says there are 4 main questions that a worldview has to deal with, concerning; 1) origins, 2) meaning, 3) morality, and 4) destiny. Everyone has a worldview, whether they are aware of it or not, because everyone deals with these questions in some way.
1. Origins: How did I get here? Well, that’s easy; from my parents. But how did they get here? From their parents, and so on. But obviously that can’t go on forever; at some point in the past there is a non-parent answer to that question. Did God start the whole thing? Did nature start it? And if nature started it, why did that happen? Why is there anything at all?
2. Meaning: What is my purpose? Why am I here? Am I just trying to be happy before I die, or is there something greater? Should I feel better if people remember me after I’m gone? What about producing many descendents who go on through history? How will any of that matter when I’m dead? When we’re all dead? Is life just some pointless science experiment by nobody for no reason; and when it’s over it will be as if nothing ever happened? And who’s to say at that point that anything ever did happen? Why should I even go on?
3. Morality: How should I live? What are my obligations? Do we have rights, and if so, on what authority? What rights do we have? Do we have the same rights? Is it ok to judge others? If not, how do you explain that judgment? By what standard do we judge, or are we judged? What consequences are there for my actions?
4. Destiny: What comes next? What happens when we die? Is heaven for real? Should I trust a 4-year old to answer that question?
These questions affect not only how you perceive yourself & the world around you, but how you live your life. Not only is it important to have satisfying answers to these four questions, but each of your answers should be consistent with each other. If you think that man’s destiny is the grave & nothing more, it would be odd for you to hold that your purpose is to strive for the prosperity & perseverance of the human race.
If you haven’t thought about these things, I recommend you start. What else have you been thinking about? Is it worth it? You might be wasting your time. Aha, you are thinking about it, aren’t you? Congratulations, you are a philosopher. And to think, I paid money to be one & you snuck in for free!
Well, it turns out it’s after midnight, so I have indeed failed to fail at failing. I’m a trifecta of fail. But the most important thing of all is… nevermind, I’ll come back to this point later.
Topic randomly selected from a list of apologetic questions.
#52. What are the key pieces of evidence for evolution?
1. Ancient Organism Remains
We’ve found fossils, bones, insects in amber, petrified wood, and even ancient animals preserved to this day in ice (I recall not too long ago some villagers in Russia were eating a preserved mammoth).
So what do remains tell us about evolution? By their existence alone, very little; but they are the primary evidence from the past that we have to work with. Dating methods can tell us these remains are very old, but that alone doesn’t prove evolution. I believe the case for evolution from organism remains involves arranging them sequentially to form a kind of pattern. So if we can see that the oldest remains are generally the most simple forms of life, & the newer remains are generally the more complex forms of life, this corroborates the idea that all lifeforms are related, with the more complex forms having evolved from the less complex forms.
Of course, this pattern only corroborates the theory of evolution. In other words; it doesn’t rule evolution out; but neither does it indicate that evolution is true.
2. Fossil Layers
I would think fossil layers are a component of ancient organism remains, but I suppose it is a particularly important part of the case for evolution. Fossils are found in sedimentary rock because it is formed by adding layer upon layer of dust, dirt, & debris (including dinosaurs). We know how sedimentary rock is formed (well, I don’t; but I know what scientists say – I guess that’s going to have to do because I’m not going to get a science degree) & we can see distinct layers of sedimentary rock, indicating different conditions, sediment materials, etc. This helps compare various strata (distinct layers).
Fossil layers help to compare ages of fossils. When dinosaurs are always found below elephants, it suggests they lived & died much earlier than elephants did. I don’t know if we actually find any elephant fossils, but I don’t care. You get the idea.
3. Similarities Among Living Organisms
Here’s the main point, in my understanding. Look around. There are a number of distinct body types. Zebras, donkeys, and horses are quite similar. Chimps are very similar to humans. It seems natural to suggest that similar animals are related in some way. With genetics, we can see that similar animals have similar DNA.
All of this corroborates very nicely with the theory of evolution, but again there doesn’t seem to be any positive evidence. If God were to create all animals in a day, and He wanted to make two kinds of animals that were very similar, wouldn’t you expect Him to use similar DNA?
But I think there’s a little more to it than this. Scientists claim they can identify copying errors in genes in humans that are the same in some primates supposed to be relatives. If this is correct, this would seem to be positive evidence for evolution. This is where it helps to be an evolutionary scientist. How are the rest of us supposed to take claims like this? I try to give the benefit of the doubt & if possible go with the majority opinion
There is another factor when you add geology into the picture. For example, I’m sure you’ve noticed that certain continents form a very obvious jigsaw puzzle. If we suppose that, for instance, Africa & South America were once joined (& how can we not suppose this?), we can then look for similarities in plant & animal life in those two areas. It turns out (so I’m told – remember, I’m not a scientist), that you have a very peculiar similarity in some plant & animal life between those two far away continents. If plants & animals were simply randomly distributed, there should be arbitrary similarities (for example between south africa & Alaska, or Germany & Australia), but what we seem to find are similarities between regions bordering each other, and regions that were clearly at one time bordering each other. Very peculiar, in my mind.
4. Similarities of Embryos
I guess the similarities of embryos goes along the same lines as above, so I’m not going to get into this too much. It strikes me as not particularly odd that various animal types would develop from nearly identical embryos; whether evolution is true or not.
Ask the Doctor; maybe he knows
So there you have it; 4 factors that are seen as strong evidence of evolution. If you were trying to figure out whether I believe in evolution or not, you may have been frustrated. I am skeptical of evolution in general, however there are aspects I find compelling. It seems to have some explanatory power, but significant holes. Since I know that God exists & is the creator, I know that all life being related is not too difficult for Him, but I can’t figure out how it works & I’m not particularly worried about it. On the other hand, creating everything distinct is perfectly reasonable as well.
Post written by Mrs. Igniscient
Book: What is your Worldview
Author:James N Anderson
Description: A sort of choose your own adventure. Answer the questions, follow the instructions to the next page, and find out what your worldview really is.
How I heard about it: Mr. Igniscient brought it to my attention.
Thoughts: This is a really fun little book. I was not surprised that I do hold the Christian worldview, but I think there are many that may find their beliefs do not line up with classical Christianity. If you disagree with what world view you end up with the book gives you some suggested questions to revisit. It is also nice to read through the brief overviews of other worldviews but important to understand that just because someone says they have a certain worldview does not mean they even know what that worldview professes. It took me about an hour to run through the whole thing.
It’s Good Friday! So this is the anniversary (sort of) of the day Jesus died; I guess that’s good. I had this conversation with my 4 year old today. It makes perfect sense to her. “If Jesus died, then we can go to heaven, but if he didn’t die, then we can’t.” What can be better news than this? I mean, it sucked for Jesus, clearly; so it seems kind of weird too say, “hooray! they killed Jesus!” But that’s pretty much what Good Friday is all about, isn’t it? On the other hand, what’s done is done; shouldn’t we appreciate what he went through for our sake?
One more thing I want to share today. This was shared by Ravi Zacharias on Facebook. A blog post titled, “Is Richard Dawkins leading people to Jesus?” That made me smile.
Part 2 – Identifying “The Cause”
Omniscience is another controversial attribute. On the one hand, it seems pretty straightforward; if God is all-powerful He must know everything, right? Of course right! And that is where I start with our not yet identified cause of the universe. Since we know that it is omnipotent, it stands to reason that it has access to all truth at all times.
The difficulty with omniscience is with knowledge of the future, or foreknowledge. In Christian doctrine, God knows the future. Some charge that since God knows all future actions we may “choose”, there is in fact no choice because we can only possibly choose what God already knows will happen. If only one course of action is even possible, how can humans have any free will? It seems that if God knows the future, human freewill is impossible; but only an illusion of freewill is the case. This objection to Christianity tends to have the end of disproving the Christian God, or at least the religion which holds to the apparently contradictory doctrines of human freewill & God’s foreknowledge.
Since we have already established the existence of an intelligent, omnipotent creator, rejecting its existence is not on the table. Since we know that this creator transcends the universe it created, we know that time is not a limitation for it; therefore in light of its omnipotence, it must have knowledge of all truth; past, present, & future. Perhaps there truly is no such thing as human freewill then? Let’s take a closer look.
Suppose I was walking along a path & came to a fork. Which side will I choose? I don’t know; I haven’t decided yet, but an omniscient transcendent being would know because it would be able to observe the choice from a perspective outside of time. Suppose the omniscient being knows that I will choose left. In that case when I decide, I will certainly choose left. Now, does it follow that I will choose left because the omniscient being knows I will choose left?
Well, on the one hand, we could say that because the omniscient being knows it, we can know that I will choose left; but this only describes how we come to know that, not how I make the decision. There is a causal link between the omniscient being knowing what I will choose (and revealing it to us in this example), and our knowing what the result will be, but it is not clear at all how this knowledge causes me to choose one way or another.
Ok, but doesn’t the fact that the omniscient being knows what I will choose prove that the future is determined already? If the omniscient being knows it, then there is only one possibility; I may think I have a free choice, but there is no possibility that I will choose the one the omniscient being knows that I won’t. But then, there never was any possibility that I would choose what I wouldn’t choose, so why should this be a problem?
Is your head hurting yet? If so, you might want to leave it there. If you’re following, this is where it gets exciting.
So the major problem, as I see it, with the idea that an omniscient being knowing the future means that the future is determined, is that it forces temporal limitations on a being we know created time & exists outside its limitations. If we view this being as a creature of the universe, stuck in the present along with all of us, then it’s knowledge of the future can only mean one thing: at the present moment, it is true that the future is written & is immutable (ie. the future is determined). If the omniscient being existed in this way, stuck in the present moment, it would not have to know the future to be omniscient. If the future is unwritten, it hasn’t happened yet & there is nothing to know. But we would expect a being outside the spatial-temporal universe to be able to relate to the universe by any possible reference point in time or space. To such a being, it would be as if the entire history of the universe is complete & yet mutable. Changes might be made at one point in history which would affect everything afterward, yet the free-willed creatures would merely go about their free-willed lives as if it was always that way.
And of course it would have always been whatever way the omniscient (& omnipotent) being decided it should be. It is important to not sneak temporality back in & see it as a sort of editing process, with a prior original history & then a succession of revisions. If you could imagine all the revisions (we might call them, “acts of God”) being a part of the original creation, I think this would be a better picture. You could think of the “end result” (though remember it would be more like an instantaneous act than a editing process) as something like the selection of one possible world out of many possibilities involving an infinite number of different combinations of potential revisions (or acts of God).
So in short; the future knowledge of an omnipotent being does not cause the necessary lack of free-will. Rather, the omnipotent being knows what choices will necessarily be made, because it sees that they are in fact made. The knowledge is a result of the choice, which is known from outside of the temporal system in which it is made.