Melissa Cain Travis poses a challenge to theistic evolutionists on her blog: Hard-Core Christianity.
Excerpt:
Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) was a prominent paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. Although he was not a man of faith, that didn’t stop him from writing and commenting extensively on the relationship between science and religious belief. In his book, Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, Gould proposed what is known as the “non-overlapping magisteria” philosophy (NOMA). In this model, science and religion address completely separate spheres of knowledge; science cannot comment on religion and religion cannot comment on science. According to Gould, they should happily coexist:
I do not see how science and religion could be unified, or even synthesized, under any common scheme of explanation or analysis; but I also do not understand why the two enterprises should experience any conflict. Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world…Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different , realm of human purposes, meanings, and values…—Gould, Rock of Ages
The NOMA view is becoming increasingly pervasive among Christian believers, often with disregard for (or perhaps ignorance of) the philosophical and theological ramifications. A prime example of this is the human origins debate. Theistic evolutionists promote the scientific consensus of human-ape common ancestry, making the (philosophical and theological) claim that the physical origin of humanity is irrelevant to Christ’s work on the cross as our Redeemer.
Let’s examine that. If God created man by way of an evolutionary process and (as theistic evolutionists claim) man gradually became “spiritually aware” at some point in that process, what do we do with the doctrine of original sin? What we have is a race of hominids whose behavior and mentality evolved based on survival of the fittest, without any awareness of God or morality. Karl Giberson, a well-known theistic evolutionist, says:
“Selfishness… drives the evolutionary process. Unselfish creatures died, and their unselfish genes perished with them. Selfish creatures, who attended to their own needs for food, power, and sex, flourished and passed on these genes to their offspring. After many generations selfishness was so fully programmed in our genomes that it was a significant part of what we now call human nature.”—Karl Giberson, Saving Darwin
Then one day, though one final neurophysiological mutation or perhaps a supernatural “ensoulment” event, these hominids receive their first moral mandate from God, whom they suddenly recognize. From this point onward, their behavior has life or death consequences. Some of the thoughts and behaviors that the evolutionary process (aka God’s creation process) has instilled within their very nature are now considered sin; moral accountability now applies.
But, what does Scripture tell us about the advent of sin?
How would you respond to that account of the Fall? Does it square with what the Bible says about human nature? Think of your answer (leave a comment!) and then click here to read Melissa’s response.
Filed under: Polemics, Bible, Darwinism, Evolution, Naturalism, Theistic Atheism, Theistic Evolution
As a theistic evolutionist I think she\’s slightly misguided in saying that we became spiritually aware slowly. While I would say that morality is at some level the result of natural selection, it\’s not helpful to say that about spirituality. I take the idea of the creation in God\’s image, i.e. being given a soul, as the beginning of the biblical relationship with God, But I also think that evolution get a view of being too \”dark and unspiritual\”. It\’s quite possible that God can have relationships with evolving people, as he does now!
I wonder whether part of the answer to Mrs. Travis is that her thinking is too bound within time. It’s not clear to me that our life in the hereafter will be entirely within time (everlasting, as opposed to eternal), and it’s not clear to me that the Bible is intended to tell us that original sin had a normal relationship to time, either. Is it possible, for example, that (in some sense that is outside of normal time) we all chose sin with Adam, and that the curse’s consequences work backward to taint all of earth’s history before man existed?
It may sound far-fetched, but again, it doesn’t seem so out of place to me among the other things Christianity tells us (and, I hasten to add, I fully believe the other things Christianity tells us).
@Chillingsworth: As a rule, I don’t accept any position that requires backward causation to make it work. I think it’s a good rule even if it doesn’t make for good science fiction — which is what your suggestion amounts to.
As a creationist, I think Adam and Eve had knowledge of good and evil before the Fall. After they ate the fruit from the forbidden tree, then they had experiential knowledge of good and evil which plunged human nature into sin (total depravity)
As a theistic evolutionist, I think one could say Adam and Eve were the first of God’s creatures with souls/made in God’s image and the fall could have happened just as in the example above. Before the fall: knowledge of good and evil after the fall: experiential knowledge of good and evil (total depravity)
Since the comments are closed where the OP was, I guess I’ll comment here. I disagree completely that science (when interpreted correctly) must agree with scripture (when interpreted correctly). At some point, Christians must respect the Bible for what it is, and what it is not – and it isn’t a science textbook.
Genesis 1-2 may nor may not have been intended to be a literal origins story. But even if it was, there’s no good reason to think they would have gotten it right – and it certainly doesn’t appear as if they did (if that was their intention). UNLESS… you are committed a priori to the idea that God inspired and infallibly communicated to whoever jotted the story down. But there’s no reason to think that, either.
BUT even if you do think that… there’s no reason to think that “The doctrine of Redemption is only coherent in light of the traditional doctrine of Original Sin.” First of all, it’s very debatable as to whether or not “original sin” was even a key concept in Judaism before Paul. Second, redemption makes perfect sense without original sin. We need to be redeemed because we sin/have sinned. Period. No need to bring “original sin” into things. If anything, it just makes things more complicated: like if babies are born separated from God, then why do we think they go to heaven? And if God has mercy on the ignorant, then why should we spread the gospel to them? Aren’t we actually putting them in risk of hellfire by giving them the opportunity to reject the gospel? Etc.
Also, while I can understand the prohibition on backwards causation, I believe William Dembski proposed a similar idea with the Fall and Redemption in The End of Christianity. While I get that backwards causation is seemingly a ridiculous idea, I don’t know why it would be MORE ridiculous than, say, feeding the 5000, walking on the water, rising from the dead, or predicting the future.
“At some point, Christians must respect the Bible for what it is, and what it is not – and it isn’t a science textbook.”
I couldn’t agree more!
(I agree even though, depending on how he means it, I may disagree with Mr. Chappell about biblical inspiration and original sin.)
Obviously if you’re a Christian you have a very good reason to believe that the writer of the Genesis account got it right: God revealed it to them. We can argue about how to interpret Genesis 1-2 but if we believe that God revealed it then that automatically provides warrant for believing whatever it teaches. You can claim that believing in such things a priori is ridiculous but, if Christianity is true, then it is probably properly basic for Christians to believe that when the Scriptures are interpreted rightly they contain truths on these matters. Does that mean that the Bible is a science textbook? No. It means that the Bible does reveal certain truths that have implications for our understanding of science. For example, if you believe the Scriptural proposition that God exists and created the world then you can’t believe any scientific theory that entails that there is no designer.
Nothing on original sin before Paul? Interesting. You may want to take a look at these passages: Ps. 14:1-3; 51:5; Job 15:14; Prov. 20:9; Ecc. 7:20. According to the OT it is a fact that everyone is corrupt and this fact begs for explanation. If the OT writers and Paul were directed by the same God then why can’t he build upon that which he has already revealed? Your objections depend upon your presupposition that Christianity is false but if you came here to argue that Christians ought to change their beliefs then you haven’t provided any reason for us to do so. All you’ve succeeded in doing is begging the question.
As for your comments on backward causation, Dembski has the right to be wrong on this issue. ;) Is backwards causation more ridiculous than feeding the 5000 or walking on water or rising from the dead or predicting the future? I don’t know what’s supposed to be so ridiculous about any of those examples. I’m sure you could explain all of these things quite easily if you were working from the premise that Christianity is true. But I’ll give you a relevant difference anyway between the examples you brought up and backwards causation. My view is that backwards causation is impossible – in the broadly logical sense – whereas the examples you brought up are.
David: there isn’t anything properly basic about believing in the in the inspiration of scripture. It is a hefty claim that should be accompanied by evidence/justification. Instead, it is an unwarranted assumption, and unwarranted assumptions do not provide justification for anything. The proposition “if Christianity is true” relies exclusively on how true scripture is, yet you want to use the affirmation of the proposition to justify trust in scripture (or, rather its proper interpretation). It’s circular.
I do agree, however, that it’s quite clear that whether or not the Bible is a science textbook, it does make claims against which it can be tested. The question is whether or not one has the stones to simply say “The Bible is wrong” on such a point, or whether one will exercise hermeneutical gymnastics to make it say something the author probably didn’t intend.
Speaking of which, do you honestly believe that when the Psalmist says “In sin my mother conceived me”, that they are referring to *original* sin, and not the sinful liaison which resulted in the conception of the child? None of the other verses even remotely begin to establish a doctrine of original sin; instead, they affirm what everyone already knows (to a certain extent): that none of us are perfect. Furthermore, I’m pretty sure most Bible scholars would throw up a huge caution flag in trying to use poetic verse as a foundation for such a key doctrine. In any case, I think the general historical agreement is that there was no doctrine of “original sin” before Paul, and even then it really didn’t get developed until much later in Church history, one of the reasons why it was never accepted in the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
BTW, my presupposition do not rest upon Christianity being false. The fact that I disagree with my brothers and sisters on key points, and wish to perhaps further my own understanding by engaging with those who take opposing views, does not mean that I believe Christianity is false. Also, the statement “Christianity is true” should be a *conclusion*, not a presupposition.
Finally, as for backwards causation, I would be curious as to how you would formulate the argument that it’s impossible any differently than someone else would formulate the argument that walking on the water is the same. (I assume you are familiar with the fact that there are those who would claim miracles are logically impossible). My guess is that you would have to formulate such an argument based on the premise that causation has only been observed to work forwards in time: but this is an inductive claim (which would rule out any claims for impossibility) and ignores the fact that many, if not most, Christians believe God exists outside of time.
That should be “whereas the examples you brought up aren’t.” Doh!
@Chappell
“there isn’t anything properly basic about believing in the in the inspiration of scripture. It is a hefty claim that should be accompanied by evidence/justification. Instead, it is an unwarranted assumption, and unwarranted assumptions do not provide justification for anything. The proposition “if Christianity is true” relies exclusively on how true scripture is, yet you want to use the affirmation of the proposition to justify trust in scripture (or, rather its proper interpretation). It’s circular.”
For starters, “if Christianity is true” isn’t a proposition. It doesn’t pick out a meaning that can be either true or false. “If Christianity is true then believing the Bible to be the word of God is warranted for Christians”, however, is a proposition. It can be true or false. I say it’s true because if Christianity is true (aka – the God who is described in Scripture exists) then Christians have been made in such a way that we can know that God exists in a properly basic way. Furthermore, when we go to read the Scriptures, if Christianity is true, then Christians are warranted in believing them because they contain true information from a reliable source, namely, God. You’ve misunderstood what I was doing when I said, “if Christianity is true then…” I wasn’t arguing in a circle as in “the bible is true which justifies my belief that the Christian God exists which justifies my belief that the Bible is true which…”. I was arguing that if Christianity is true then it is probably the case that God has designed in such a way that we can be warranted in believing in the truth of the Scriptures in a properly basic way. It’s a conditional statement. I believe the antecedent to be true and I take this belief to be properly basic. If you disagree then it’s up to you to provide a defeater for my view and, as I said, all you’ve done is assume that my view is false. That doesn’t challenge my view at all.
“I do agree, however, that it’s quite clear that whether or not the Bible is a science textbook, it does make claims against which it can be tested. The question is whether or not one has the stones to simply say “The Bible is wrong” on such a point, or whether one will exercise hermeneutical gymnastics to make it say something the author probably didn’t intend.”
To make it a question of having ‘the stones’ to simply say that the Bible is wrong simplifies the issue. Just because there’s an apparent disagreement between the Bible and modern scientific consensus on a particular point doesn’t mean that a person is irrational to believe the Bible in the teeth of the evidence. (I know, I know… a million objections but hear me out!) If someone believes the Scriptures to be the word of God and they also have a high view of science and they see modern scientific consensus as in conflict with the Bible then they have options. Let me list just two:
(1) They could take the scientific evidence to be so strong that it justifies altering certain theological beliefs. This need not be so drastic as giving up belief in Christianity. They could conclude that their interpretation of, say, Genesis 1 is mistaken. After all, they believe the Bible to be infallible not their interpretation of it.
(2) They could take the scientific evidence to be strong but not enough to alter their theological beliefs. For instance, they know from reading the history of science that often beliefs that have been pronounced ex cathedra by the best scientific minds of that age as gospel truth turn out to be false. Take the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, for instance. They’re both highly confirmed, elegant theories that, sadly, can’t both be true. So despite the fact that they take the current scientific evidence as strongly opposing their position they trust the Scriptures more and believe that when all the data comes in it will be in accordance with Scripture.
There’s more to be said on the subject of the relation between Scripture and science but I think I’ve said enough to show how it’s not as simple as you’ve made it sound. Maybe Christians should have the stones to trust God’s word even when scientists, the prophets and seers of our age, tell us otherwise. (For more on the subject see this post from Dr. James Anderson: http://www.proginosko.com/2009/10/scripture-or-science/)
“Speaking of which, do you honestly believe that when the Psalmist says “In sin my mother conceived me”, that they are referring to *original* sin, and not the sinful liaison which resulted in the conception of the child? None of the other verses even remotely begin to establish a doctrine of original sin; instead, they affirm what everyone already knows (to a certain extent): that none of us are perfect. Furthermore, I’m pretty sure most Bible scholars would throw up a huge caution flag in trying to use poetic verse as a foundation for such a key doctrine. In any case, I think the general historical agreement is that there was no doctrine of “original sin” before Paul, and even then it really didn’t get developed until much later in Church history, one of the reasons why it was never accepted in the Eastern Orthodox tradition.”
I don’t think they have the worked out doctrine of original sin that, say, the Apostle Paul did. However, they did believe that everyone is corrupt and that would seem more than a little odd if they thought humans come into this world with the possibility of being perfect a la Pelagianism, don’t you think? I think it’s highly likely that even if they didn’t believe in original sin they at least believed in original corruption. In any case, whether we take it as original sin or original corruption it is still difficult to reconcile with the fall in Adam of Romans 5.
“BTW, my presupposition do not rest upon Christianity being false. The fact that I disagree with my brothers and sisters on key points, and wish to perhaps further my own understanding by engaging with those who take opposing views, does not mean that I believe Christianity is false.”
I’m glad. I took it that you were coming at this from a non-Christian perspective because of your low view of Scripture. I disagree with on the nature of Scripture but I don’t think that if you deny inerrancy that you’re automatically disqualified as a Christian. All that you’ve said in this paragraph seems find to me but for reasons I’ve given above I don’t think that those who engage opposing worldviews and yet come down on the side of a more traditional understanding of creation are intellectually inferior. I hope you see that.
“Also, the statement “Christianity is true” should be a *conclusion*, not a presupposition.”
Why’s that? If Christianity is true then don’t you think it makes sense that God would make us in such a way that this belief can be acquired in a properly basic fashion? Why the need for argument? It’s not as if all of our warranted beliefs came through argument. I take it that other minds exist without argument or inference. I just believe it. Am I doing something wrong? If you don’t think I am then why can’t belief in God arise in this way? You would benefit from reading some epistemology. I recommend Alvin Plantinga’s ‘Warranted Christian Belief’ to start. Thoughtful and at times hilarious and, best of all, you can read it for free on the web: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/plantinga/warrant3.html
“Finally, as for backwards causation, I would be curious as to how you would formulate the argument that it’s impossible any differently than someone else would formulate the argument that walking on the water is the same. (I assume you are familiar with the fact that there are those who would claim miracles are logically impossible). My guess is that you would have to formulate such an argument based on the premise that causation has only been observed to work forwards in time: but this is an inductive claim (which would rule out any claims for impossibility) and ignores the fact that many, if not most, Christians believe God exists outside of time.”
I would argue it from the nature of time (simple, eh?! lol). Time is the measure of change and change involves causation. Causation gives time it’s direction so, in the nature of the case, causation is always going forward. I don’t really see a problem with the experiential argument but I haven’t thought about it too much. Also, I don’t see how taking the timeless view of God is relevant to the issue.
“Then one day, though one final neurophysiological mutation or perhaps a supernatural “ensoulment” event, these hominids receive their first moral mandate from God, whom they suddenly recognize. From this point onward, their behavior has life or death consequences. Some of the thoughts and behaviors that the evolutionary process (aka God’s creation process) has instilled within their very nature are now considered sin; moral accountability now applies.
But, what does Scripture tell us about the advent of sin?”
TE is garbage, in fact, ToE is a pile of dung, complete nonsense…..mutations providing new info, civilization arising from a random mixing of elements/molecules, asexual creatures naturaly developing reproductive capabilities…..etc, etc…..
at least Christians admit they believe in miracles and the supernatural but what on earth is the naturalists excuse for their fantastical thinking :/
@David – due to the length of this reply, I am only addressing the issue of scripture inspiration for now.
You are correct in pointing out that my “if” statement was not a proposition. I was copying-and-pasting to save some time (not a fast typer), but unfortunately carried one word too many over and didn’t notice it. My bad.
We agree that if Christianity is true, then it is plausible that Christians have been made in such a way that we can know that God exists. I’m not sure I’d extend the proposition, as you do, to include “in a properly basic way”. But for the sake of argument, I’ll do so.
A reconstruction of what you said:
Proposition: If Christianity is true then believing the Bible to be the word of God is warranted for Christians
Support #1: Christians have been made in such a way that we can know that God exists in a properly basic way.
Support #2: Christians are warranted in believing [scripture] because they contain true information from a reliable source, namely, God.
#1 does not seem relevant to me. I assume with #2, you are making this a properly basic belief. But not just any belief can be called “properly basic” – criterion must be met before a belief can in fact be properly called “properly basic”. Generally, these must be either self-evident, and/or necessary to believe for rational discourse (foundational beliefs). You indicate that you prefer Plantinga’s “reformed epistemology”, so let’s start there:
“A belief that is formed by a way of knowing, whose purpose is to produce true beliefs, functioning properly in a person, under conditions which allow proper function, is said to have warrant, i.e. it’s “epistemologically OK” to believe it, unless it has defeaters.”
If I understand Plantinga correctly, he would say that the above not only has warrant, but also constitutes a properly basic belief. So let’s examine the proposition “the Bible is inspired by God” to see if it fits this criteria.
1. Does it form from a way of knowing? You have not specified how someone is to come to knowledge, only that if they did so it *could* be properly basic. I assume – although you know what they say about that – that you would appeal to the Holy Spirit here? IF that is the case, then I would ask how we can know if this particular religious experience is a “way of knowing”. Because to me, what would really be occurring is not the formation of a warranted, because it is basic, belief; but an appeal to religious experience as evidence for the warrant of the belief. Which of course is exactly what he seems to be avoiding.
that this is decidedly NOT a way of knowing anything, as any short amount of experience in the Christian faith will reveal that those who say the Holy Spirit has revealed anything to them are almost exclusively vague or wrong. To me, you’d have to demonstrate that this particular religious experience is a legitimate “way of knowing”. That will be difficult. Perhaps I am confusing this notion of unreliability with other factors (see below), but nonetheless I think it remains problematic.
2. Is the purpose to produce a true belief? If we’re talking about the Holy Spirit, I think the answer is obviously “yes”.
3. Is the Holy Spirit’s revelation functioning properly within a person? How would we know that? Again, if we reference our experience with so many who claim to have heard from the Holy Spirit, it’s obvious that something quite routinely goes awry in the process. One would assume that the problem would never be with the Holy Spirit, but I don’t know how we could answer this question on a human being’s end without bunch of ????’s. Without satisfying this criterion, something cannot qualify as properly basic belief, according to Plantinga.
4. Under conditions which allow proper function. Again, what are the conditions which allow for the proper functioning of the Holy Spirit? Again, we would assume that the Holy Spirit always properly functions, regardless of conditions, but that does not necessarily hold for humans.
5. …unless there are defeaters. You say I have not offered any, only the assumption that your belief is false. My assumption, to be honest, was that you’d wouldn’t be able to offer a justification. I have heard of people claiming that belief in God is properly basic, and I don’t dispute that. I have never heard someone try the same reasoning with divine inspiration of scripture, but it seems to me that even in trying to make it warranted without argumentation, you still really haven’t justified the claim.
Again, it is not because I simply assume your belief is false that I claim it is an unwarranted assumption. I *conclude* that it is unwarranted based on numerous lines of evidence that indicates scripture was more plausibly the work of man than it is the Word of God. I assume that you are familiar with such evidences and simply don’t find them convincing enough to abandon an (alleged) properly basic belief.
I *conclude* that it is not a proper basic belief (and this merely an assumption), because it does not seem to fall under such a category – not even Plantinga’s. I think an argument could be made that, if Christianity is true, then God would have designed scripture in such a way as to NOT be believed in a properly basic way, but I’d have to flesh that out.
AC, you have offered nothing except sneering and hand-waving, as if they are arguments. WHY is it garbage? Furthermore, why are you trying to claim that theistic evolutionists have to be naturalists? Or am I misunderstanding you?
@David – moving on to the relationship with science & scripture
“Just because there’s an apparent disagreement between the Bible and modern scientific consensus on a particular point doesn’t mean that a person is irrational to believe the Bible in the teeth of the evidence.”
It depends on the strength/merits of each point of view. I agree with your two options, and the notion that I made it sound too simple. For sure, simply because there may be evidence to the contrary does not immediately necessitate giving up one’s beliefs. Nevertheless, I emphasized having the “stones” to admit the the Bible is wrong on certain issues simply because it is the one thing, in principle, that the vast majority of Christians can’t bring themselves to do – ever. Instead, they will simply perform some type of convoluted interpretation, or just leave it a mystery.
As for the notion of “trusting God’s word”, well, you are guilty as I was of making something too simple. I can trust “God’s word” all I want – that doesn’t mean that I have it, or that I am interpreting it correctly. To be fair, the same could be said of scientific evidence – are we interpreting it correctly?
In practice, however, Christians betray themselves. They’ll accept the results of paternity testing, or mDNA in a forensic analysis – but not when this technology tells us we probably didn’t descend from one female. We accept helpful products of nuclear physics, such as electricity (and by extension the knowledge on which such technology is based), yet arch eyebrows at related applications of such knowledge, such as radiometric dating. But when we’re sick, do we expect a healing miracle, or do we give our kids medicine? So what do we as Christians really place our trust in? Seems inconsistent.
Please see:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/were-they-real-the-scientific-case-for-adam-and-eve
The Reasons.org article you cite makes it clear that Y-chromosome data and mDNA data “can be interpreted” as deriving from an ancestral pair. Anyone familiar with such language knows that this is a creative way to say that this isn’t the straightforward way to interpret this data. Furthermore, they point to the Biologos site for more info, and the very Biologos page that is linked to, when discussing this same data, states in no uncertain terms that our ancestors were “… not two people. Our species diverged as a population. The data are absolutely clear about that.”
@Chappell
Thanks for the reply. My life’s a little hectic at the moment so I may not be able to respond again.
“You are correct in pointing out that my “if” statement was not a proposition. I was copying-and-pasting to save some time (not a fast typer), but unfortunately carried one word too many over and didn’t notice it. My bad.”
Not a problem. You seem pretty sharp so I was surprised to see you make such an obvious mistake.
Most of your last comment relies on some misunderstandings of reformed epistemology so allow me to quote Plantinga so you’re clear as to what he (and I) mean by a belief having warrant:
“Put in a nutshell, then, a belief has warrant for a person S only if that belief is produced in S by cognitive faculties functioning properly (subject to no dysfunction) in a cognitive environment that is appropriate for S’s kind of cognitive faculties, according to a design plan that is successfully aimed at truth. We must add, furthermore, that when a belief meets these conditions and does enjoy warrant, the degree of warrant it enjoys depends on the strength of the belief, the firmness with which S holds it.” (WCB, 174-175)
We add to this that most of our beliefs can be called ‘basic’ – i.e they were not formed on the basis of evidence. I see another human being talking and I immediately form the belief that I have encountered another mind. I see a sheep on a hill across the way and form the belief that I see a sheep on a hill across the way. These kinds of beliefs are basic for me. A belief is properly basic if I acquire it in such a way that it is basic and it meets the conditions quoted above in which it is produced by cognitive faculties functioning properly in a cognitive environment that…, etc. etc. As I said, most of our beliefs arise from this way. Perceptual beliefs, a priori beliefs, beliefs about the mental states of the people we encounter or what Thomas Reid called sympathy and a myriad of other beliefs typically occur in this matter. To this list I would also add testimonial beliefs – beliefs that we form based on the testimony of others. I’m told that the majority of modern biologists are Darwinists and I form the belief, uninteresting as it may be, that the majority of modern biologists are Darwinists and I believe that I am warranted in doing so provided that I don’t have any reason not to trust you.
Any of these properly basic kinds of belief – including testimony – can be defeated. So although a person can believe Scripture in a properly basic way (aka their belief in the veracity of Scripture comes about in the usual way that testimonial beliefs come about) this belief can be defeated. What counts as a defeater will depend on the person. My argument is that, if Christianity is true, then God has made it so that belief in the veracity of Scriptures can be held in a properly basic (aka basic and warranted) fashion. The Scriptures themselves point in this direction. (Jn 10:27) The Holy Spirit would probably work in our hearts and minds so as to make the degree to which we hold this truth much stronger than it would normally upon receiving testimony. There are plenty of ways in which the Holy Spirit might do this but I won’t go into it here.
You seem to think that by appealing to the Holy Spirit that this would have to be justified by an appeal to evidence from religious experience but I don’t think that. For starters, I don’t think there is anything wrong about appealing to religious experience but that’s another matter. (See Alston’s Perceiving God for a defense of religious experience as knowledge from an analytic philosopher) But more importantly, I’ve been arguing that if Christianity is true then we could be warranted in believing these things in a properly basic way. That is, I would need no evidence.
Take Lucy for example. She grows up in a Christian home and she comes to believe in the Bible through hearing it read to her by her parents. She’s told by her parents that the Bible is the word of God and believes it based on their testimony. This belief is further corroborated by the Bible’s referring to itself as the Word of God and her belief is cemented by the Holy Spirit’s work on her noetic structure. She comes to believe in the veracity of the Scripture’s not on the basis of her religious experience or because she perceives that the Holy Spirit is working in her life (although she might). She comes to her belief in the basic way through her beliefs being formed by cognitive faculties functioning properly in a cognitive environment that… etc. She need not be able to argue the point either. Most people would not be in any position to argue that the external world or other minds exist to a competent skeptic but we would, nonetheless, take their beliefs in such things as warranted. Likewise, Lucy might not be able to argue against a skeptic but she might nonetheless be warranted in holding these beliefs provided that Christianity is true and the Holy Spirit has acted upon her noetic structures in the right way. No evidence required.
Now, you’ve proposed a defeater for whether or not the Holy Spirit’s work on a person has brought about the right beliefs. After all, for so many who claim to have heard from the Holy Spirit it’s obvious that something has gone “awry”. That’s certainly true. I’ve known many a would-be prophet and prophetess who, I believe, sincerely believes that the Holy Spirit has told them such and such but I don’t believe that he has for a second. Now, without treading on my charismatic brothers, I think that in many (possibly, not all) the person is mistaken. The belief arises in an unwarranted manner. Either from beliefs aimed at the enjoyment of the experience of God’s direct revelation rather than truth or perhaps even, in some cases, due to some kind of cognitive malfunction. So is this a defeater for what I’ve been claiming? I don’t think so. Take a parallel example. Lucy believes that the external world exists; that when she sees the grass outside her house it really is grass and it would really be there whether or not she was looking at or even if there was no her to look at it. But suppose her older brother comes home, fresh from watching The Matrix for the first time, might come along and ask her questions like, “How do you know the grass outside even exists?! What if you’re just plugged into the matrix and there really is no grass?!” If she was told this she might wonder at how ridiculous her brother is. Of course there’s grass. If she took him seriously we’d be concerned about her. At the very most it provides a weak undercutting defeater and so she might hold her belief in the grass outside slightly less firmly; very slightly. Likewise, provided that the Holy Spirit had worked on her cognitive faculties in such a way as to produce this belief someone might question her but depending on how strong she takes the skeptical question to be she may take it seriously or not. If she doesn’t take it seriously because her belief in the veracity of the Scriptures are too strong or she doesn’t think the skeptical question should be taken seriously then she can still be warranted in her belief. I tend to agree with Lucy. I don’t see this kind of skeptical question as very strong. And Plantinga would, I think, be on our side. Just because a defeater presents itself it doesn’t mean that we even need to have a great answer for it if the defeater isn’t strong enough to affect us.
I know you assumed that Christians would be able to offer justification for their belief in the Scriptures being the word of God but what I’m saying is that if it is the word of God then we wouldn’t have to. We could believe it because we are made in such a way to believe it. That’s not to say that no arguments could be used to bolster this belief only that it isn’t necessary per se.
“Again, it is not because I simply assume your belief is false that I claim it is an unwarranted assumption. I *conclude* that it is unwarranted based on numerous lines of evidence that indicates scripture was more plausibly the work of man than it is the Word of God. I assume that you are familiar with such evidences and simply don’t find them convincing enough to abandon an (alleged) properly basic belief.”
That’s fine but, please, don’t assume that because you find the evidence persuasive against the Scriptures being the word of God that this somehow points to a defect in others who disagree. My point has been, from my first my comment, that Christians have good reason to believe that the Scriptures are true because they believe it is the word of God. If you’d like to contest that then you’d need to present defeaters otherwise you’ve just told us that you find the evidence compelling which is great as a bit of anecdotal information but not so great as a defeater – not that you presented it as a defeater.
From what you’ve been saying it sounds like you not only reject biblical inerrancy but even the weaker biblical infallibility. But, I wonder, what kind of Christianity are you left with?
“I think an argument could be made that, if Christianity is true, then God would have designed scripture in such a way as to NOT be believed in a properly basic way, but I’d have to flesh that out.”
Now that is a tall order. Let me know if you come up with anything. I’m very curious to know how you’d go about arguing such a position!
Moving on to your reply on the scientific issues. You’ve agreed with my two options but:
“Nevertheless, I emphasized having the “stones” to admit the the Bible is wrong on certain issues simply because it is the one thing, in principle, that the vast majority of Christians can’t bring themselves to do – ever.”
I agree. But what I’ve been saying is that this principle is a good one for Christians to hold provided Christianity is true. It shows loyalty to God through unwillingness to say that he makes mistakes or intentionally deceives. Perhaps there are other options but I confess that I don’t see any.
“Instead, they will simply perform some type of convoluted interpretation, or just leave it a mystery.”
Now here’s where the rubber meets the road! I do have a problem with convoluted interpretations. I’m not in to forcing the text to say something I want it to say. The man of God must correctly handle the word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15) But what’s wrong with a little mystery? There are plenty of questions that we don’t know the answer to – especially in science – so why is mystery such a bad thing? We may not like having all the answers (I’m an egghead so I understand the frustration of having to say ‘I don’t know’) but are we really in a position to get rid of mystery? As someone who professes to be a Christian you should be okay with at least some mystery. Read Job for example. Sometimes mystery can be painful but it gives us an opportunity to be faithful to the one who has been faithful to us even when it’s hard – intellectually or otherwise.
“As for the notion of “trusting God’s word”, well, you are guilty as I was of making something too simple. I can trust “God’s word” all I want – that doesn’t mean that I have it, or that I am interpreting it correctly.”
Never said it did. That’s why I’ve been careful to throw in those ‘if’s.
“To be fair, the same could be said of scientific evidence – are we interpreting it correctly?”
Bingo!
“In practice, however, Christians betray themselves. They’ll accept the results of paternity testing, or mDNA in a forensic analysis – but not when this technology tells us we probably didn’t descend from one female. We accept helpful products of nuclear physics, such as electricity (and by extension the knowledge on which such technology is based), yet arch eyebrows at related applications of such knowledge, such as radiometric dating. But when we’re sick, do we expect a healing miracle, or do we give our kids medicine? So what do we as Christians really place our trust in? Seems inconsistent.”
This isn’t a question of faith vs science. For the most part, I believe that we should listen to scientists provided that they are speaking about something in their field. However, scientists and other intelligent people are not without their biases, presuppositions, and worldviews. As a general rule, the closer the questions get to matters of ultimate importance like ‘does God exist?’, ‘what is man’s purpose?’, ‘where did we come from?’ and the like, the more skeptical we should become. That’s especially true when we acknowledge the distinction between theoretical and experimental science. There’s nothing inconsistent about it. Just an acknowledgment that scientists have worldviews and it affects their science. So, for example, if most biologists are Darwinists that might be because they have a prior commitment to naturalism which makes Darwinism the only game in town. Not because there are no other games to play but because there town only allows for one game. Try to get a bunch of Brits to give up the soccer field so that the Americans can play some football and you’ll get the idea. ;)
I think that we should probably draw this one to a close if David cannot respond. JB, can you make your last response a shorter conclusion? These comments are getting really big!
Sorry! Tried to make them shorter by replying to different claims.
@David, re:Original Sin
Back on topic! ;)
You stated:
-”…they did believe that everyone is corrupt and that would seem more than a little odd if they thought humans come into this world with the possibility of being perfect a la Pelagianism, don’t you think?”-
No. It interesting that you would use a passage from Job to try to demonstrate original sin, when God Himself says that Job was blameless and upright. And that was at a fairly advanced stage in his life.
Again, I think it is important that no Jew today – that I know of – believes in Original Sin or Total Depravity, and I find no evidence historically that this has ever been the case either. It seems far more likely that this developed as a Christian distinctive, rather than Jews at some point stopped believing it. The scriptures you cite, and the entirety of scripture, point to the fact that it seems as if everyone falls short at some point. It’s hard to be perfect. We all sin. Again, no Original Sin or Total Depravity is needed for Christ to to be a sacrifice for our sins – or, to be a ransom (if you believe in a ransom theory of atonement).
-” I think it’s highly likely that even if they didn’t believe in original sin they at least believed in original corruption. In any case, whether we take it as original sin or original corruption it is still difficult to reconcile with the fall in Adam of Romans 5.”-
I could be wrong, but I think it’s more likely that they believed, as the Eastern Orthodox church affirms, that the world is now cursed, “fallen”. Conditions aren’t as they were intended, and this makes things exceptionally harder. It’s not clear to me exactly what you mean by “corruption”, perhaps something akin (or equivalent?) to total depravity? I do think that is probably closer to what an OT Hebrew might have believed, but it is still clear to me that total depravity is a far more recent idea.
Now, just because these ideas may be original to Paul (or Augustine, or whoever) doesn’t make them wrong. Nevertheless, I think it is important to understand, as it is usually very understated, just how much of Christianity belongs to Paul, not Jesus.
@David, re: inerrancy/inspiration of scripture (again)
-”My argument is that, if Christianity is true, then God has made it so that belief in the veracity of Scriptures can be held in a properly basic (aka basic and warranted) fashion. The Scriptures themselves point in this direction. (Jn 10:27) “-
But in order to be “properly basic” you would need to demonstrate HOW “God has made it so”. You need to account for the mechanism. To do this, you appeal to the Holy Spirit.
-”The Holy Spirit would probably work in our hearts and minds so as to make the degree to which we hold this truth much stronger than it would normally upon receiving testimony. “-
Speculation.
-”You seem to think that by appealing to the Holy Spirit that this would have to be justified by an appeal to evidence from religious experience but I don’t think that.”-
Well, not thinking it and not needing to think it are two different things, as I’m sure you agree. Unless I am mistaken, and you haven’t pointed to anything that would discount my claim, you would have to rely on an experience of the Holy Spirit on which to make such a claim “properly basic”.
-”But more importantly, I’ve been arguing that if Christianity is true then we could be warranted in believing these things in a properly basic way. That is, I would need no evidence.”-
Unless you want to pull a William Lane Craig and say that an experience of the Holy Spirit is “self-authenticating”, then I would say that in reality what we have here is not a belief that rests on no evidence, but a belief whose warrant rests on evidence of a genuine experience. Evidence that is very difficult to come by.
Regarding the example of “Lucy”"
-”She comes to her belief in the basic way through her beliefs being formed by cognitive faculties functioning properly in a cognitive environment that… etc.”
No, she formed her belief based on evidence, but – unfortunately – bad evidence. She *trusted* her parents, so when they told her the Bible was the Word of God, she counted accepted it because, to her, they are reliable. This is testimonial evidence from a trusted source. When she read the Bible and it said it was the Word of God (which it never does, but never mind that for the moment), she, whether consciously or not, accepted it as evidence for it’s own inspiration/inerrancy (gotta love self-authentication!). When/if she felt the Holy Spirit confirming this same notion, it was also evidence in the form of a religious experience. Thus, what we have here is an *inference*, based on testimony (from both parents and the Bible itself) and religious experience.
Now, I would grant that it’s basic for a child to listen to his/her parents. At some point, however, I think you’d agree that eventually a child needs to hold beliefs that they’ve tested and accepted on their own – especially if these beliefs are really important. What you would have me believe is that a belief formed as an inference based on spurious evidence can continue to be held *without* evidence if it fulfills Plantinga’s criteria. Now, I do not deny the existence legitimacy of “basic” beliefs (such as the existence of other minds), but – again – it seems obvious to me that the inspiration/inerrancy of scripture, then, can neither be demonstrated to fulfill Plantinga’s criteria nor can it be demonstrated to be a strong inference. To insist that such a belief is properly basic in this way is to concede that you have no good reason to believe it.
You have conceded that claims of being inspired by the “Holy Spirit” are problematic. I will go one further and state that depending on what exactly is being said you probably doubt such a claim a priori. Despite the fact you cannot demonstrate that this belief would fulfill Plantinga’s criteria, and despite the fact the mechanism cannot be demonstrated at all to “properly function”, you do not think this is an adequate defeater? I’m not sure what else could be said along these lines, other than it’s quite clear that there is no adequate defeater.
However, I cannot help but point out that your example with Lucy and the grass is hardly “parallel”. Empirical observation of this sort is considered basic in just about any epistemological framework. Not so for appeals to the Holy Spirit. You say that by questioning the existence of the grass the brother has only provided “a weak undercutting defeater.” But it should made clear that asking a question is not a defeater. If, on the other hand, the brother was able to point out to Lucy that she was basing her belief of “grass” on an experience which is generally considered to be spurious (even if Christianity is true!), then he has – in my mind – offered an adequate defeater. At that point, Lucy should begin to verify her claim. If she can do so – great! Unfortunately, however, I’ve never met anyone who has done so for Biblical inerrancy.
@Chappell
Alright, absolute last comment!
You said: “But in order to be “properly basic” you would need to demonstrate HOW “God has made it so”. You need to account for the mechanism. To do this, you appeal to the Holy Spirit.”
The entire point is that I don’t need to account for the mechanism in order for the belief to be warranted. In the same way that I don’t need to know how my eyes work in order to know that I see and I don’t need to be able to provide an epistemological argument for the existence of other minds in order to be warranted in believing in other minds so my belief that the Bible is the word of God can be warranted despite not knowing the mechanism that brings it about. All I need to do in order to defeat your claim that a person can’t know that the Bible is inerrant is show how they could be warranted in holding this belief. It doesn’t even have to be accurate it just needs to possible. I’ve demonstrated that it is possible so your view is defeated and my point stands: If Christianity is true then belief in the Bible can be warranted in the properly basic way.
Nice chatting with you. Maybe I’ll bump into you again on this thing we call the interweb. God bless!
OK that’s the last comment, please!
@David: more on scripture & science
-”… this principle [trusting God's Word] is a good one for Christians to hold provided Christianity is true. It shows loyalty to God through unwillingness to say that he makes mistakes or intentionally deceives.”-
Interestingly, the Bible is quite clear that He does intentionally deceive. And if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old (not saying you do), then you have to believe that God has at least made physical evidence of this very deceptive. But in any case, it shows no loyalty to God by holding to a particular *interpretation* of scripture when it conflicts with science. At least none that I can see.
-”But what’s wrong with a little mystery? There are plenty of questions that we don’t know the answer to – especially in science – so why is mystery such a bad thing?”-
Mystery is not, in itself, bad. What is bad is inconsistent practice. When interpreting the Bible, we need to be consistent. If every time the science conflicts with what we observe (or how we interpret it) we lapse into “well, it’s not really clear what God is trying to say” or “perhaps its figurative” – what are we really saying? Often, it seems clear enough until the data disagrees. But I am OK with genuine mysteries in principle. For instance, I don’t pretend to have any idea what the book of Revelation is trying to say in most places. ;)
@David: on whether belief in Christianity can be properly basic
-”Why’s that? If Christianity is true then don’t you think it makes sense that God would make us in such a way that this belief can be acquired in a properly basic fashion?”-
No. I think the belief in God, in a generic sense, is properly basic. But Christianity, specifically? No, I think that this belief form can only be formed with evidence.
-”Why the need for argument?”-
I don’t know – ask Jesus. He said “go and make disciples”. He led the way in demonstrating how this should be done, and he did so by performing miracles and trying to *demonstrate* His authority and identity. The apostles seem to have done the same.
No offense David, but now we’re up to belief in God, presumably beliefs in a specific God (Yahweh), belief in Biblical inerrancy/infallibility, and belief in Christianity as being beliefs that can be accepted with NO evidence. I could be wrong, but it just seems to me that with you there is no end to what can be held with no evidence as long as it is prefaced with “if Christianity is true…” and then an appeal to the Holy Spirit.
@David, re: backwards causation
-”Causation gives time it’s direction so, in the nature of the case, causation is always going forward.”-
You said you were arguing from the nature of time, yet it seems you are arguing from the nature of causation. In fact, you seem to be doing exactly as I said, which is inductively arguing that causation has only been observed to move forward. Now, to be sure, this is a strong inductive claim. But enough to rule out backwards causation by God Himself?
-”Also, I don’t see how taking the timeless view of God is relevant to the issue.”-
Well, IF God exists outside of time (and not everyone agrees that He does), then it would seem to me that it would be easy for those of us inside time to perceive His actions as retroactive as well as active and sustaining. However, I have to admit that such thinking about time makes my brain hurt ;)
Hi, although I am a progressive creationist at this time, I have my own view on how this works.
As a matter of priorities:
1) The first thing that should be asked is “what is the best hermeneutic for understanding Genesis?” If John Walton is right, then the creation account is a poetic narrative, the flood story representing the ‘uncreation’ of the world, and so on. Every time we find an interpretation of the relevant scripture, we must analyse it (I have only been able to make a superficial analysis of John Walton, so extra input is appreciated).
2) We must next ask how the ancient Hebrews understood the interaction between body and spirit? The research I’ve done suggests a form of holism; a human is a unity between a body and a spirit (this is what a soul is). If the spirit is not reducible to the body, then it follows that God must still intervene at the ensoulment of the first humans.
3) We must then ask about how many humans existed at the time. Were Adam and Eve the only humans, as I argue is acceptable for a theistic evolutionist to believe? Were there other humans with them? If we take the former option, then we can stop the buck here, and evolution is compatible with Christianity. If not, then we must next consider:
4) the social concepts of the ancient Hebrews. They believed that the group was more important than the individual, so it would actually be justified for God to condemn the rest of humanity because of the sins of Adam and Eve, provided that they were man’s representatives to God.
My personal answer, according to the consideration of these questions: theistic evolutionists would explain the Original Sin by stating that Adam and Eve were God’s first humans (ensoulment), and sinned, kicking us out of the Garden.