What a timely post. My daughter is having a rough experience in a public school which might result in us homeschooling in the next few weeks. I fear I will not fit into the Christian circles, both as a doubter and as a scientist, and I suspect I will have to only join the secular homeschooling groups. I was reading on one of the homeschooling boards how some Christian homeschoolers only want to their children to be friends with other Christians….I’m sure they would not want to be-friend me!

I am praising God that during my four years of homeschooling I never came under the influence of these two men!

I would include Bill Gothard in that group, too.

Thanks for telling us what “F.F.” stands for. I’ve racked my brain and never would have come up with that.

Dinosaurs boarded Noah’s Ark two by two and survived the flood.

I’ve actually heard a SS teacher say this.

Have you seen this?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1086/1036693826_26bd7bdcd2.jpg

That’s at the Creation Museum. Man, this place is BIG BUSINESS!

http://creationmuseum.org/tickets

http://creationmuseum.org/about/give

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/creation-museum/2010/10/20/date-night-at-the-museum

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/creation-museum/2010/10/05/christmas-town-fundraising-dinner

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/creation-museum/2010/09/20/behind-the-scenes-the-museum%e2%80%99s-fossil-collection

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/creation-museum/2010/09/10/bt-natural-selection-exhibit

One visitor’s impression:

http://thefastertimes.com/scienceandreligion/2009/08/13/featured-post

The Museum’s cheerful placards matter-of-factly conclude that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. As a visual aid, a tiny animatronic velociraptor stands next to a giggling caveman child, a benevolent prehistoric pet. By rewriting the ancient past, Answers in Genesis could show that it was in the here and now. And rewrite they did. There were so many dinosaurs at the Creation Museum that I started to wonder whether they would appear with Christ on the cross.

I was just accused on my blog of hating Creationists because I am not a Young Earther and I think they are destroying the faith of our young people with their false doctrine. So yep, according to the YE/CS crowd, if you don’t believe exactly like they do, they won’t even consider you a Christian. Sad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR7b-bkae8c

Anyone remember when The Flintstones ran in prime time and was sponsored by Winston? It started out as an adult comedy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvt8skgm2l8

IMO that show jumped the shark with the arrival of The Great Gazoo.

I gracefully agree with Bunny. Your tone is making fun of us YE and lumping us all together even though I feel I do not fit what you are saying.

Upfront: I am a homeschooler who does it because the schools in our district have more guns than textbooks. We cannot afford private schools. Kids coming out of our schools district are severely under educated. Our friends are both public and private school people. We all get along fine. My son plays soccer for a private school that includes OE people. All is well. I dislike Bill Gothard and the fundies and think they are WAY off. I am somewhat socially liberal and conservative in my theology. I am young earth and could care less if you are OE. For me I have had OE crammed down my throat all my life by both the secularist and the Christian community I am involved within. I want my kids to at least have the option to consider both sides equally. Their faith in Christ does not depend on their view of the earth’s creation.

I could careless about YE and OE as a primary topic or determiner of fellowship. That is wrong. I am so sorry that some have made you guys feel less than Christian and alienated you in saying you are less than Christian if you hold to OE. That is wrong.

But to do the same back to YE is also wrong. You said “Others are leaving the faith over this issue.” I am sorry, I do not buy this statement. I do believe that Christ holds on to those who are His and never let’s them go. They may be mad over it but leaving the faith? I doubt that is the reason.

I also understand this is a blog that is primarily opinion which I respect. I just feel as Bunny that you are doing what you are speaking against. You seem bitter about it and for that I am sorry. I realize it is a privilege to post here so I appreciate you allowing me to have my say.

K.M.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I hadn’t read your response prior to responding to Bunny, and my sentiments are directed toward you as well.

It sounds as though you have never been exposed to militant YECers. I pray that as you continue to homeschool that will continue to be your experience.

Once again, this satire was directed at those who hold to the tenets of The Flintstone Doctrine. It’s frightening to realize that there are those in the YE camp who sincerely believe such things, and they are bringing much harm to the cause of Christ.

K.M.,

As a long-time home school parent, I urge you to use caution in what you teach your students. Often, it seems, we parents think we are teaching one thing, while our students absorb our words in entirely different ways than we intended.

I thought I was teaching YE as one of many possible interpretations of the beginnings of life. And I would still maintain I was never dogmatic about it, as I myself was unconvinced. Still, I wanted to be open-minded and have my children understand the plethora of belief here in Christendom.

My oldest daughter, who does not care much for science, heard something quite different. You see, not only was she hearing the YE point of view in her Christian school science textbooks in elementary school, the vacation Bible school, AWANA, and various Christian home school support groups were throwing it in wherever possible. Unfortunately, it was not science for the most part, but ridicule and paranoia. “Evolutionists” was a term on par with “wicked atheist”. Even as a small child it was clear to her that this was a bad person. So no one taught her why carbon dating was important or why anyone relied on it to tell them things about how long something had been in existence; she was only told it was flawed logic that bad “evolutionists” used to bamboozle people.

Having had an evangelistic atheist biology professor in college (OSU 1986, botanist, don’t remember his name) I never really challenged this reactionary YE movement. This professor didn’t teach science either, not in the freshman classes anyway. He taught against Christianity, spending gobs of time railing on and on about the history of European Christianity, specifically Catholicism. So it really didn’t bother me that the Christian community was giving tit for tat. It was a non-essential issue. I mostly ignored it.

But my daughter did not ignore it. She grew up with a chip on her shoulder toward science and scientists. I really didn’t realize how serious of a problem this was until she was in college and her brother, who is very interested in science, made some comments that challenged her beliefs. That’s when I saw how seriously the sneering attitudes that YE had towards scientists had infected my daughter’s (shall we use one of their favorite terms?) “world view”.

I personally have my faith built firmly on the “bedrock” (sorry, couldn’t resist) that all truth is God’s truth. The heavens declare the glory of God and the earth shows His handiwork. The things we learn about this natural world (speed of light, fossil record, DNA, existence of black holes, etc.) all point to an amazingly intelligent Creator who is so far above and beyond all we can think or imagine. It amazes me, and were I trained in science, the question on my mind always would be, “how did You make this work, God?” Finding out that stars are millions of light-years away never shook my faith. It enhanced my sense of awe.

Since I have been home schooling for 14 years now, I can tell you that home schooled students ARE walking away from the faith. No one talks about these students at the conventions. If it is brought up in a conversation among parents, it is always the student that is the problem- “rebellious” I think is the common pejorative. Mostly these walk-aways though are relegated to oblivion. People dispense with their existence. If you didn’t know the family for a long time, you would never know they HAD older children.

I will agree that the fact that YECS doesn’t stand up to the evidence of reality is not the only disillusion that turns these students away, but it is certainly one large nail in the coffin.

The many other disputable matters that dogmatic fundamentalist home school parents insist upon also shares responsibility. For more than one of my acquaintances, it was the parent’s dispensing of the existence of the “wayward” oldest that started the questioning. For others, it was the insistence on patriarchy, courtship, strict dress codes, and other demands for strict conformity of belief and practice. For another, it was the horrible farce of their parents’ crappy home school marriage that turned her off of her family’s faith.

For all ( and I know several who claim to now be atheists, and several who say they don’t know what they believe anymore) these tertiary doctrines were taught as essentials to the faith. It all comes down to an inerrantist reading as literal every word of their English translations (usually KJV) that they want to take as literal, and dispensing of what doesn’t fit their paradigm just like they dispense of the existence of other Christian’s faith. Just like they dispense with the existence of billions of years of starlight.

Children think this way already. Everything is black or white, this or that, in a child’s understanding. So, someone tells your child that God created the world 6000-10000 yrs ago in 6 days. They then add “that’s what the Bible says” and maybe a slogan like “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

Teachers then go on to talk about atheists who believe in evolution. To the child, the equation is simple: Believe in God,=believe in the Bible= YECS. Don’t believe in YECS=don’t believe in God. Good people believe in God, therefore good people believe in YECS. Evolutionists=atheists=bad people.

Still skeptical? Ask your children to tell you what kind of people believe in evolution, then sit back and listen. My experience shows they will use the word atheist. I sincerely doubt they have considered that devout Christians who love Jesus and live by His words would ever be anything other than a YECS adherent.

The problem occurs when they leave home and they find out that the sound bites they were taught in their YE science seminars don’t stump their professors. If they have a thoughtful professor who will patiently explain how looking at the facts led to this scientific discovery, then the YECS student will be stumped. If this kindly, intelligent evolutionist turns out NOT to be evil personified, but reasonable, patient and more importantly, have facts on their side, that YECS student will rightfully begin to question what he/she was taught as a child.

If YECS was presented as an essential of the faith, and that student fully bought into that view, then in their mind Christianity and evolution can not both be true. If the facts convince them evolution is true, and/or the earth is much older than they were told “the Bible plainly teaches” then they will conclude that they can not be Christians.

Christ holds on those that are his? Absolutely. If the child’s faith was genuine and not merely demanded by outward pressure of an isolated fundamentalist paradigm, then that child will return to Christ at some point. But not necessarily to the organized religion of Christianity.

The Barna group did a recent study that revealed that 61% of evangelical Christian youth leave the church as adults. Half of those are predicted to eventually return to organized Christianity as they age.

I am open to questioning home school graduates, so they are talking to me after they leave home. I am basing all my advice/opinion on the realities with which I am personally acquainted. Your experience may very well be different, K.M., but that may only be because your children are still young. Keep your eyes open, and watch closely the families with children older than yours.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, no? So the proof of the soundness of Christian home school social mores is in the lives of the older graduates. Ask around delicately, and I think you will find that my experience is not atypical.

Best wishes for a long, satisfying, mutually supportive relationship between you and your children even after they have graduated and gone out into the big wide world outside of your home and school, SS

Shadowspring

We are highlighting your comment in a guest post special today. You are awesome!

Hi Deb, (RE: Wed, Oct 27 2010 at 10:56 am)

Although I cannot agree with Moore’s theodicy which has a decidedly reformed (Calvinist) theological flavor to it, I still applaud him for his stance on intellectual freedom regarding the non-negotiable items of the faith. To me, theodicy is more of an art form than it is a science. No matter how many claims are made for the Bible as its starting point, it all boils down to how one interprets Scripture. OEC is no more a heresy than is open theism. When we let ideologies or particular interpretations of Scripture aside from the essentials of the faith dictate how we treat other human beings, we become Crusaders and Templars rather than agents of genuine change in a world of darkness.

OEC isn’t heresy, but I’m pretty sure open theism is. But who can be completely sure? 🙂

SS,

I read a bit about Open Theism but could use some clarification. It would seem to me that scripture paints a pretty good picture of an omniscient God (i.e. Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”) and many other verses like this.

How is the knowledge of God different in Open Theism?

I think this is a pretty good example of what Mohler would argue…if you concede the authority of Scripture on the issue of creation, you are well on your way to such a low view of Scripture that you can end up calling the God of historical Christianity a giant Sims player.

Joey

How dare you make assumptions about believers who know that the science proves the earth is old. I am a committed Christian who takes the Bible very seriously. As for low views of Scripture, I dare you to ask the average YE believer in any given church to describe the Trinity. I guarantee you that heresies will fly so fast your head will spin.

I don’t really care what Mohler says. The debate is over. The science proves the earth is old and Christians will need to learn to deal with this. I refuse to ignore the scientific evidence in order to force the Scripture into a mold that is open to interpretation.The inability to look at truth is harming the cause for Christ. If Christians are not careful, they will be relegated to cult like status like the church that persecuted Galileo.

You have fallen for the Hamite misinterpretation that belief in an OE is a denial of the doctrine of the atonement. This is foolish.

SS,

Could you give me a synopsis…might be a while till I can order and read the book 🙂

Thanks!

My own religious roots began in Lutheranism. One of the things I’ve held onto out of this faith tradition is the articles of faith embodied in the Nicene Creed. Let’s be frank, even though Constantine was the prime mover behind the Creed, his motive was mainly to acquire both political and military power. He was also a monster who had his son executed and his wife boiled alive.

One of the grand ironies to come out of this brutal birthplace of the Creed, is that fact that it captures the immediate essentials of the Christian faith while at the same time granting a wide latitude of human freedom and inquiry. But here’s the problem:

Many faith traditions in American Protestantism are leery of creeds not so much for what they affirm, but more so for what they do not affirm. For example, how does one tack on no women in the pulpit, or the doctrine of total depravity unless supplements to the Creed are made under the rubric of say “biblical authority” or “inerrancy”?

Open theism is just another divide in Christendom that shouldn’t really be a divide at all because it violates none of the salient conditions for Christian faith. I concur with shadowspring that every one should read the pros and cons for open thesim and decide for themselves rather than letting someone else decide for them with slogans and circular reasoning.

Karl,

While I’m sure Dee has her own answer to why believe in the virgin birth but not young Earth, for me the difference can be defined by the following.

If a man came to me and claimed he once was blind and now can see, and that this was the result of a miracle, then I could conduct a few tests.

First and foremost I could quickly check out his claim that he could see. If He could not see, then I would reject the claim of a miracle.

… This is the YEC situation

But assuming he could see, I would then try to find out if he once was blind. Passing that test, I would now know he was not a fraud. IOW, at this point, it is possible, though perhaps unlikely, that he is telling me the truth.

I could then try to determine if there is any evidence that supplies me with a physical cause for his new found sight. I perhaps could consult his personal physician, I could even talk to the people that were perhaps at whatever place it was he began to see. If I found out that not only was there no medical procedure or other known physical cause that restored his sight, but that he was indeed at a private prayer meeting when He began to see, then the chances this is truly a miracle have just greatly increased.

Now, having fully investigated, I come to the following. If I believe in miracles, I would likely say this was a miracle. If, OTOH, I was a skeptic and did not believe in any sort of supernatural or miracle, I would probably continue to reject the miracle hypothesis.

As a Christian, as a believer in God and the supernatural, I accept the possibility of the miraculous. I do not reject the claim of a miracle just because of it being a miracle. But neither do I accept any old claim of a miracle. In the case of YEC, we have multiple possible interpretations of the scripture from which the claim is derived. That is, while the creation is a miracle, the scripture’s there are written in such a way that there are many possible mechanisms by which that miracle could have unfolded, including what we now accept in mainstream science. Further we have mountains of evidence that it simply did not happen the way in which the YEC interpretation would lead us to believe.

But in the case of the virgin birth, we have no physical evidence that proves it did not happen. We are not even sure it is impossible physically, (nature has many examples of organisms that self-fertilize). Further, there are not a great many options in terms of how to interpret the scriptures which make that claim. And finally, my experience as a Christian gives me no reason to doubt that claim, seeing as how I believe in the possibility of miracles and have seen God do some pretty amazing things just as part of my own meager existence.

Zeta

But what I am asking Dee, is how to decide which is which … You scoff at YE interpretations of genesis because it is in conflict with science and at the same time hold on to belief in a virgin birth which is equally in conflict with science. You assume the virgin birth is a miracle and at the same time reject a miraculous interpretation of creation.

I don’t see any consistency in your line of reasoning. On what basis is one a miracle and other is not? Hey Joey, feel free to chime in here bud 🙂

For my friends at Wartburg

It’s almost that time of year…so

http://mainereason.blogspot.com/2010/10/christmas-tunes-12-days.html

Karlton said:
“You assume the virgin birth is a miracle and at the same time reject a miraculous interpretation of creation.”

Karlton,

Regardless of how creation happened, I consider it to be a miracle. As a Christian, I see God as the originator of science.

It’s funny that you provided a link to the 12 days of Christmas. I treated my daughter to lunch today at one of our malls, and they are already decorating for Christmas!!! We couldn’t believe it.

Just want you to know that I enjoy reading your comments.

Karlton,

When I think about the Virgin Birth, I am awestruck by how all of those OT messianic prophecies were fulfilled by the birth of Jesus Christ. It’s a mathematical impossibility that all of them would come true. This is just one of the reasons why I never doubt the existence of God.

Dee,

Thank you. I try very hard to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The Church and those in it possessed of faith have given to the world some of the most beautiful music, art and architecture owned by man. They have inspired great deeds and great sacrifices.

I do not, nor would I ever want to minimize their contribution. I can listen to Ave Maria or Silent Night without end, I can watch a sunset and weep for its beauty. I have held a child’s hand while he died and wished, as he passed, with all my heart that he could go to a better place. Hoping, wishing, faith is as natural a part of the human experience as is love.

I do not believe that sterile atheism is the right answer, science without love, logic without compassion? I do not wish to live in that kind of world. There is a fusion out there waiting to happen, a synthesis, a new liturgy waiting in the wings of humanity. I believe we are on the cusp of discovering it and it’s form. I hope I can be a part of that discovery.

For me, I do not think it should include the supernatural, I hope it includes all the richness of our past, our faith, our compassion and our reason.

If I am right about there being nothing once a person dies, then all I can do, is my best to improve myself in this lifetime. To love those around me, to care for my family, to help others enjoy their life and to contribute to humanity’s progress. To try and leave a positive mark on the world I am going eventually to leave behind.

Justice…for those who have had a bad life, all I can do is try to provide love, maybe give them a smile or a good memory to hold on to, hold their hand so they feel connected to humanity and loved.

For those who have caused pain to others through their action, I don’t think punishment is ever the answer. The people who do evil things are also in pain, separated from everyone else, they need help as much as those they have hurt.

I wouldn’t want to live for eternity, it is my mortality that gives me purpose, compassion and a love for life…it is pain that allows me to appreciate pleasure, sadness that gives me the capacity for joy.

http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/open-theism/responses-to-objections/how-do-you-respond-to-jeremiah-15/

Karlton,

The website gives short answers to many objections to Open Theism. If you have only a passing interest, that is the place to go.

I am not personally interested in persuading you or any one else of the validity of my beliefs. I have been in sales myself, so I know well the technique of feigning interest and asking questions merely as a pretext to launch into a sales pitch. Even Christian evangelists have availed themselves of this proven way of setting up the pitch. (EE anyone?)

This may not be your purpose at all. It’s possible you may truly be interested in understanding Open Theism, rather than merely setting up your next pitch for atheism. But I confess I am jaded, and not that interested either way. I am not looking to convince you nor in being convinced by you. Sorry.

This probably makes me a bad person to dialogue with. Dee, Deb, and Orionsbelt are all more gracious, patient and better at explaining themselves than I am. I humbly defer to them.

Good thing I believe my worth is built on God’s love for me and not on my performance as an apologist ! 🙂 I would be worth very little if that were the case. As it is, I am adored, cherished, treasured by God and the feelings are mutual. Peace and good will, SS

SS – I don’t understand why you are so defensive, I didn’t ask you to persuade me about the validity of your beliefs, I only asked for a summary of something that I hadn’t heard of before. But I’ll respect your wishes and talk with the others instead.

Orion – I understand what you’re saying, that you consider a miracle to be a “normal” part of daily life, if God decides to intervene, and thus you treat evidence for the possibility of a miracle just like you would verify any other type of naturalistic claim that was made.

I was more playing devil’s advocate with my questions. I was posing it as someone who might believe in a verbal plenary interpretation of the scripture, not as an atheist. In either case you did a great job of explaining your position.

I don’t think Dee has enough hard drive space on her blog server for us to get into the validity of messianic prophecy and the NT writer’s penchant for making the NT storyline seem to fit into them…so I’ll leave that one alone 🙂

I agree with you, your blind man logic is sound, but only so once you grant the premise of an omnipotent God who intervenes in our space/time. This obviously is a premise I myself do not agree with.

Just curious, I live in Maine, where is everyone else from? – Maybe we can get together some Saturday for a coffee shop debate 🙂

Joey,

Open Theism is more than merely compatible with the Bible. It fits better both the actual Word of God, the revealed character of God and the nature of reality than anything ever offered by theologians before. The antiquity of an idea does not make it more true. The very notion that older=better is laughable. Reminds me of these people: http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

Stating that Open Theism “seems to deny what the Bible clearly teaches” doesn’t make it so. Nice try, though.

I am not the least bit interested in debating you. There are plentiful sources for you to explore the actual Scriptural support for Open Theism, or as it is more accurately described, an Open View of the future. If you really seek an accurate understanding of the idea then it will be no problem finding valuable sources from which to learn.

And I can give kudos to Al Mohler for one thing: he opened my world to the existence of Christian yoga. Yippee!

Dee,

Piedmont, mountains or coastal plains?

Also, when I posted that link about a Geocentric convention I was pretty sure it was a hoax, Only I just called the hotel, and it is actually happening!

*incredulous shock, jaw dropping disbelief, followed by laughter*

No joke! These people are serious! The end result of Creation Science? Oh. my.

shadowspring,

We live in the Piedmont – specifically the Research Triangle area, which is where I grew up. It’s a great place to live, and I’m glad Dee made it here.

Years ago I gave her a framed saying. It goes: “I’m not from North Carolina, but I got here as fast as I could!”

Dee,

You mean the Flat Earth Society is not a hoax? They are serious about their ideas? Now my head is really spinning.

I agree with you about the gulliblity factor. Yesterday I was talking with my pastor and an elder about YECS, and the elder said something along these lines: “God could do anything. He could create everything just like it is right now, down to the every nail and brick in each building, all the people on it complete with all of memories even though we just now came into being.”

I laughed, “Sure, he could. But he didn’t.” Elders response “How do you know?”

At this point I just started laughing. I told him that then we couldn’t know anything and life would be meaningless, through my giggling. I kept thinking on stoners sitting around in the 60s positing that what if we were all just a butterfly’s dream?

My pastor wasn’t much better, as he said maybe things just look old when they’re not and the laws of the universe weren’t always the same as they are now. My problem with that is that it appears to put God in the category of intentional deceiver. There is no evidence anywhere in all of creation for fluctuations in the laws of physics. Everything we know , everything ever built or invented is based on the immutability of the laws of physics.

I wish he had just stuck to the old stretching out of time theory. Which I must say, is way more thoughtful than “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” or “how do you know anything is real?” LOL

It has the benefit of my not being able to refute it, since I am a novice on the nature of time and the theory of other dimensions. All I know about time is linked with the rotation of the solar system around the sun and the long-term effects of gravity on my skin. =p

That’s a pretty big statement to say that proponents of the Open View believe the Bible is in error anywhere. Quite the opposite. The Open View is soundly grounded in scripture. I don’t believe the Bible is in error anywhere about the nature of god.

I Believe Calvinists are very much in error, though. 🙂

To Dee, I am in the Southern Piedmont, a long way from the triangle. If I ever get up that way I’ll let you know I’m in the area. I’d love to thank you in person for this blog and the respect you have shown to me and my beliefs as a sister in Christ.

Dee,

I agree with you. The Bible is not a textbook, and should not be treated as such. My point was never that the OE position in incompatible with a high view of Scripture.

I am sorry that you have had bad experiences with the YE folks. I have not, and my church is open to both views. My brother leans toward the OE view, I lean towards a YE (one of those minority of people, most of whom have little understanding of the subject)…though neither one of us thinks it is nearly as important an issue as holding to a view of a historical Adam and Eve.

Yes I had heard the mustard seed wasn’t the smallest in nature 🙂

I didn’t make the assumption based on Ham, I have never listened to him speak, or read anything he has written. I was making it based on reading Biologos for the past year or so.

Karl,

I have enjoyed reading your thoughtful and honest comments, as you present an atheist’s perspective. Most of all, I appreciate your attitude.

Many atheists hold to a world view which makes them appear unhappy about life and generally unfriendly. This is not terribly persuasive in the public square.

Recently, however, a band of “happy atheists” have surfaced. They seem more content with their views. However, they are not always particularly friendly (sometimes, even intentionally arrogant).

By contrast, you come across as both happy and friendly (ie a “friendly atheist”).

This demeanor is refreshing. Most Christians can relate to such a humble approach.

“What I think is important is that our universe is deterministic, everything forward from the big bang seems trapped by time, every cause has an effect. At least above the sub-atomic level.”

de·ter·min·is·tic [ di tùrmi nístik ]

adjective
Definition:

1. relating to determinism: relating to the doctrine or belief that everything, including every human act, is caused by something and that there is no real free will

2. of knowable outcome: having an outcome that can be predicted because all of its causes are either known or the same as those of a previous event

If by a deterministic universe you mean the second definition, I can agree with you with no adverse affect on my faith at all. I simply allow that that in this deterministic universe something called God exists, a Being responsible for all that exists, a Prime Cause. I see proof of that existence in myriad ways, including the testimony of people who claim to be in spiritual connection with that Being. The life of Jesus is unique in that He was that Being in human flesh.

Further, like Dee and many others before (I think it was you dee, could have been deb)me, I propose that things we call “miracles” now are simply God being God, a Being far superior to anything we personally experience whose attributes exist in all dimensions. If we were to fully understand the laws of these other dimensions, things we call miracles might seem completely rational and predictable given the nature of the Being of God. =)

In other words, yes, there is a cause for everything. God is no trickster. He created an orderly universe and knowing and learning is possible because of the immutability of the laws by which the universe exists. The heavens declare the glory of God and the earth shows his handiwork. It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; it is the glory of man to find it out. =)

Free will is an illusion…a short example

I have in front of me a cup of tea. I am deciding whether to take a sip..one moment please……..I did not take one. It seems like free will in action, but in truth it was only the illusion of free will. The electrical impulses between the synapses in my brain are based on strict electrical/chemical properties. My feeling of “choosing” what do do is the result of those impulses not the cause of them.

There is nothing in us that makes those impulses travel one way or the other except the chemical and electrical properties that exist at that precise moment in time. I have no control over those properties.

Because we lack the knowledge to predict what appears to be a random event, does not make it random. I could not have chosen to drink that tea, not if we rolled the universe back to its beginning a thousand times over. Given the same starting conditions I would have passed on taking a drink each and every time. The universe would have played out exactly the same each time.

But just like an invisible God whom I cannot see, cannot test for His existence, who apparently interacts only by following his own laws of nature and whom I cannot control…the fact that I have no real “free will” becomes irrelevant and I simply continue on with my life as though determinism wasn’t true.

Are we far enough down the rabbit hole yet?

I don’t see how you can have an uncaused cause (God) intervene in the chain of causes from the beginning of the universe and at the same time claim that it is natural.

If God intervenes at all, it is obviously to change what would be the natural course of events, otherwise why intervene. The fact that He causes the change without violating the laws of nature is irrelevant. It is still not what would have happened if He had done nothing.

Secondly, If God knew that change would be required then why did He not kick off the who chain of events (the universe) so it would play out that way in the first place?

If He did in fact kick off the chain events to account for, whatever this thing is, then by definition He didn’t intervene at all.

Another beer anybody?

Zeta, a few comments…

It is in fact my opinion, but it is still in line with our best understanding of how the universe works at the moment.

Quantum fluctuations have no effect on the macro world which is deterministic. In fact scientists have discovered that even within quantum fluctuations the statistical probabilities are highly deterministic.

Even if you allow for quantum fluctuations to affect the macro world, it still has no effect on the existence of free will, it simply means that you could not predict whether I will take a sip of my tea each time, but it doesn’t imply that that choice is any less deterministic. In other words even if quantum fluctuations exist and can affect your thoughts, you have no control over those fluctuations, thus no free will.

As I mentioned before, you cannot have divine intervention, the suspending or changing of the laws of causality in this world without losing completely the ability to learn, make predictions based on knowledge and to test ideas or hypothesis or for that matter to even differentiate reality from non-reality.

Hmm, treading into murky water .. looking for flashlight .. ahh here it is ..

What I say deterministic I do not mean what Calvin meant, I am not talking about predestination by God, i.e. the pre election of the saved. I am talking about it in the scientific sense that every “effect” has a direct and corresponding “cause” and that there is an unbroken chain of cause/effects back to the beginning of the universe.

When I say that there is no free will, again I am not referring to Calvin, but more to the behavior of our brain, our thoughts if you will, in light of the paragraph above. What is a thought is not the result of electrical and chemical states in the brain? What we think, what we perceive as “choice” is simply the result of electrical impulses flying from synapse to synapse in our brains. Those impulses, like everything else in the universe are driven by cause and effect.

Think of it like a player piano, remember the ones where you have a roll of paper with holes punched in it which cause the piano to play certain notes? We function just like that. Maybe its a function of language (my pet theory), that gives us this “reflective” ability to hear or think about our own thoughts as though we were in control of them, but in reality I believe the player piano is analogy is closer to the truth. in a nutshell…

When I hear the words in my head “should I take a sip of my coffee?” I feel like I created that thought, but in reality, the chemical and electrical impulses must have already occurred, because they ARE the thought. I am simply perceiving and articulating with language, those electrical impulses after the fact.

Overall I think the idea of free will and the idea of cause/effect are related, but also they can be discussed separately. If our idea of an unbroken chain of cause/effect events is correct it would preclude the intervention of a divine being except as a primary first cause. Since God is not directly and unequivocally subject to us (in other words we cannot be the “cause” for God’s “effect”…there is nothing we can do to make Him jump the same way each and every time we push the same button) then if He intervenes in our universe at all, He is breaking that chain of events and we now live in a completely unpredictable world where we cannot rely on anything and we become unable to distinguish reality from magic.

Dee,

Sorry I am just now answering your question. It is based on my understanding of Scripture. I understand the consensus among the vast majority of scientists is that the age of the earth is much greater than anything around 10,000 years. The consensus among the vast majority of scientists is also that man has descended from long line of animals. I disagree halfheartedly with the age of the earth, and completely and wholeheartedly with the evolution of man.

On the basis that it is incompatible with Scripture.

I am not a scientist, and would not claim to be able to argue compellingly with any scientist in regards to evolution.

In college I took a few science courses where evolution was taught, and actually wasn’t particularly impressed with all the “overwhelming” evidence. Micro evolution, survival of the fittest, these concepts made sense, and you can observe them in nature. Macro evolution, not so much. For instance the peppered moths that are so often cited as an example of natural selection…are definitely a great example of micro evolution. However, in the two hundred years they have been studied…there hasn’t actual been any change in genetics. The darker ones have thrived, and the lighter ones have died off due to a change in the environment…survival of the fittest…but no change in genetics.

Again, I am in business…not a scientist…so I know I am a novice in these matters.

For fun, check out:

http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2010/02/isnt-evolution-wonderful-14-mind.html

Dee,

I understand where you are coming from…it’s easy for me to be gracious when I am talking about things that are over my head 🙂

Thanks for the reply, it was very helpful.

Hi Karl-The Happy Atheist

Now that would send shock waves resounding through both worlds-atheism and Christianity. A Christian hired on as a blog writer at an atheist site. That would be one for the ages.

Karl,

I do not wish to mislead you. I am not trying to offer an explanation of how God operates in the world. I am simply calling to task your statement there can be no such thing as a free will. We simply don’t know enough to make that statement. The proposals I have made highlight two areas primarily:

A) There are areas in our universe where causality as we understand it is not in play. Further, that these elements can have unique effects on specific events. If an event can occur that I can’t predict from the current state of the universe, AND that event can effect the future direction of some component or subset of the universe, no matter how small, then strict determinism is denied.

B) That even within what we can derive deterministically there are strict limits to the extent to which we can 1) predict the future and 2) determine the precise past. These limits are defined by the fact that we can only measure the current state of the universe to finite precision. At some point, we run into to limiting factors. One is that defined by the exclusion principle. That is, I can only know one of two factors. For example, if I want to know precisely where an electron is, I can’t know when it was there, and vice versa. The other is the random nature of certain quantum events, such as those which determine the time a which an atomic nuclei will decay. I simply can’t predict when a given atom of C14 will become an atom of C12, or perhaps more importantly, when a given atom of U238 will become Th234, releasing an alpha particle which can then go on to collide with some other atom.

IOW, The universe is only deterministic on average. We can never know enough to predict the future fully, or fully determine the past.

So, basically, all I am saying is that free will can’t be ruled out because the universe is deterministic, because in reality the universe isn’t deterministic in such a way as to fully account for all variables.

But I am not trying to say God fiddles at all times (or even ever) at the quantum level. I am just saying that If God wanted to fiddle, He could and we’d never know about it. That is, we just don’t know enough to rule out the existence of God. He can be there, and He can be quite active if He wants to, and we’d not be able to detect it in any way at this time – if that was His goal.

Zeta

Hi Karl,

nice article, makes my point well 😉

Again though, remember I am not proposing a mechanism for ‘free will’, but rather calling into question your reason for rejecting the concept of a ‘free will’, absolute determinism in the universe.

So, in fact, I am not saying quantum effects impacting the macro scale imply the existence of free will or are the mechanism behind it. I am saying your reason for rejecting the possibility of a free will is not valid.

Once we agree that the universe can’t really be considered absolutely deterministic in a way that would rule out free will, we can then speculate as to how such a thing may or may not exist.

Also, I’m not trying to be coy here. Often the divide between science and faith derives from one side or the other overstating their case and being unwilling to admit the possibility something from the other side might be true. So I pursue to point in that vain. We really don’t know if there is or is not a free will. We do know that many things sometimes thought to be of a spiritual nature are at least partially of physical origin. That plays in your favor, but does not make your case.

Zeta