Over several blog posts I have begun discussing this idea of the Creator’s Prerogative: that the inventor/designer/creator of any thing, including God creating us, has the right to place expectations on his/her/its creation. If this argument is biblically the case, then it has some severe weight as to why Christianity and evolution are irrevocably incompatible.
Here again is the Creator’s Prerogative argument:
P1: The Creator has invested everything needed to make their creation
P2: The Creator has a specific purpose and function intended for their creation
P3: The Creator continually provides everything needed for the creation to function according to the Creator's intentions
C: Therefore, the Creator has Creator's Prerogative, the right to expect and require the creation to function according to the purposes and intentions of the Creator, and even to create consequences in the event of failure to do so.
In my last post on this subject I proved that the Bible, from all corners, supports the first premise, the Investment Premise. Next, I need to show that the Bible supports the second statement, which I call the Purpose and Intent Premise.
So, did God have a specific purpose and function that He intended for us when He made us?
The Bible’s immediate answer, as you may know, is yes:
“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in our own image, according to our likeness.” – Genesis 1:26
God made us in His own image; He intended us to be like Him. Many arguments have been put forward as to what this means, whether it means that God, as religious studies scholars would put it, is anthropomorphic, or whether we were supposed to be spiritual beings or creative or holy, or something else. What exactly in us is like God isn’t specific here, but it IS clear that God had intentions as he created us. Job asks, “Did you [God] not…clothe me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews” (Job 10:11)? If our sinews, muscles, and body systems work a certain way, then it would seem, based on this verse and others like it that God “assembled” us to work that way: He knit us this way on purpose.
The boldest statement made to this end may just come in Proverbs, when the Wiseman writes that “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4). What a claim of intention! However, we must remember that God is omniscient, which means He was allowed to plan a lot in greater detail than a more shortsighted creator would be capable of. Finally, Romans 8:28 tells us that those who love God are “called according to His purpose.”
Clearly, if God did create us, then He did indeed have and still has intended functional qualities and purposes for us, thus supporting the Purpose and Intent Premise.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Silence Between
Following is a scene derived from my creative writing exercise that will hopefully make it into my novel:
The morning after he left, when raindrops fell like melodramatic tears from a clichéd grey sky, I decided to take a walk. Water, after all, symbolizes purification, cleansing, and – most importantly – healing. The cool rain sounded like a percussive symphony of whimpers, calling him back, begging his sympathy. It begged my mourning, too, but that would not come for many weeks. The newest batch of spell-flowers were in bloom, a raucous cacophony of fiery red, ponderous blue, mellow purple, and a whole litany of other colors. Each flower would produce a new spell, a new magic, and even in his absence, research would continue.
The raindrops became cymbals to a weary mind, and the horrendous memories came flowing back. A rotted body: alive and well only two hours previous. The potion, insidiously clever and maliciously effective, had killed him at some undetermined time after consumption. He could have drank it a week earlier, or been fed it at birth for all that was certain about its dormancy rate. A team of twenty high-ranking mages had investigated the murder, and no results had come forth. For once, the music that guided everything had stopped, had been silent, and the crushing pain was a solitary one.
The memories slip away as the surrounding gardens awaken. A snake slithers into its warm hole, avoiding the rain curtain soaking the ground. Two animals race up a tree to hide in its branches, away from the cold water’s death-like reach. It’s amazing to realize that every creature instinctively runs from the rain. Like the animals of this garden, the mages are running from the truth that falls on their faces even now; they continue to tell themselves that it must have been an accident, that it must have been a mistake. After all, who would kill him? But they knew the answer to that question. They knew it all too well, like a violin concerto that haunts the soul, there could only be one answer to that question.
Even the fortifications of this castle of endless wonders couldn’t keep that greatest enemy away. Envy causes countless murders every day, why not his? Just because these beautiful flowers, these symbols of sheer brilliance and unbound creativity, were created by the castle inhabitants, are the castle inhabitants necessarily free from guilt? He himself had envied, on more than one occasion, the work of others. Of course, ethics and reason kept him from stealing their work or killing them, but still he envied. Mages may be the world’s solution to catastrophe, but no one here is flawless, just the same.
A pool is forming in the corner, around the place where he fell off the wall, just last season, after deciding that he had gone far too long without being childish. If something comes along – and who knows what force could actually achieve this – and threatens this community of scholar artists, who will save them? Music saves man from insanity, but if music is in danger, who saves it? If the notes stop coming and the strings stretch and snap, will someone play in the cello’s place? Or is the cello doomed to insignificance and the world doomed to silence? If no one attends his funeral, has magic become irrelevant to the world?
The branches above, as if in disagreement, shake, and a deluge falls from their fingers. The rain soaks to the bone, but it feels good. Like something new has been planted that will someday blossom and bloom. The rain deposits life where, only moments ago, there was only blankness. Today will not be the end.
The morning after he left, when raindrops fell like melodramatic tears from a clichéd grey sky, I decided to take a walk. Water, after all, symbolizes purification, cleansing, and – most importantly – healing. The cool rain sounded like a percussive symphony of whimpers, calling him back, begging his sympathy. It begged my mourning, too, but that would not come for many weeks. The newest batch of spell-flowers were in bloom, a raucous cacophony of fiery red, ponderous blue, mellow purple, and a whole litany of other colors. Each flower would produce a new spell, a new magic, and even in his absence, research would continue.
The raindrops became cymbals to a weary mind, and the horrendous memories came flowing back. A rotted body: alive and well only two hours previous. The potion, insidiously clever and maliciously effective, had killed him at some undetermined time after consumption. He could have drank it a week earlier, or been fed it at birth for all that was certain about its dormancy rate. A team of twenty high-ranking mages had investigated the murder, and no results had come forth. For once, the music that guided everything had stopped, had been silent, and the crushing pain was a solitary one.
The memories slip away as the surrounding gardens awaken. A snake slithers into its warm hole, avoiding the rain curtain soaking the ground. Two animals race up a tree to hide in its branches, away from the cold water’s death-like reach. It’s amazing to realize that every creature instinctively runs from the rain. Like the animals of this garden, the mages are running from the truth that falls on their faces even now; they continue to tell themselves that it must have been an accident, that it must have been a mistake. After all, who would kill him? But they knew the answer to that question. They knew it all too well, like a violin concerto that haunts the soul, there could only be one answer to that question.
Even the fortifications of this castle of endless wonders couldn’t keep that greatest enemy away. Envy causes countless murders every day, why not his? Just because these beautiful flowers, these symbols of sheer brilliance and unbound creativity, were created by the castle inhabitants, are the castle inhabitants necessarily free from guilt? He himself had envied, on more than one occasion, the work of others. Of course, ethics and reason kept him from stealing their work or killing them, but still he envied. Mages may be the world’s solution to catastrophe, but no one here is flawless, just the same.
A pool is forming in the corner, around the place where he fell off the wall, just last season, after deciding that he had gone far too long without being childish. If something comes along – and who knows what force could actually achieve this – and threatens this community of scholar artists, who will save them? Music saves man from insanity, but if music is in danger, who saves it? If the notes stop coming and the strings stretch and snap, will someone play in the cello’s place? Or is the cello doomed to insignificance and the world doomed to silence? If no one attends his funeral, has magic become irrelevant to the world?
The branches above, as if in disagreement, shake, and a deluge falls from their fingers. The rain soaks to the bone, but it feels good. Like something new has been planted that will someday blossom and bloom. The rain deposits life where, only moments ago, there was only blankness. Today will not be the end.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Creator’s Prerogative – The Investment Premise
Last summer, I began a project to show how evolution and Biblical principals were incompatible, focusing on the ethical side of things. My project didn’t get very far, but I did develop an idea called Creator’s Prerogative. (For those who want to know where the argument came from, look to the post titled “Evolution’s Ethical Problem: Creator’s Prerogative” from July 19th, 2010.)
Here is the Creator’s Prerogative argument as a refresher:
P1: The Creator has invested everything needed to make their creation
P2: The Creator has a specific purpose and function intended for their creation
P3: The Creator continually provides everything needed for the creation to function according to the Creator's intentions
C: Therefore, the Creator has Creator's Prerogative, the right to expect and require the creation to function according to the purposes and intentions of the Creator, and even to create consequences in the event of failure to do so.
My purpose, here, is not to disprove evolution – I am not a scientist. My purpose is to show that the tenets of evolution, at a fundamental level, are wholly incompatible with Christian philosophy. In order for this argument to help me, then, I must prove that the Bible supports its premises. Over the next few posts, I intend to do this very thing, premise by premise.
We start with the first premise: the “Investment Premise.” I argue that the Creator (God, in this case) has provided/invested everything needed to make His creations.
Here’s what the Bible has to say about this point: Genesis 1, of course, points it out clearly. God speaks, and the authority and power attached to His command bring the things He names into being. Sounds like investment to me! What about Psalm 148:5, where David says that “He commanded and they were created,” after listing the things of creation. Isaiah tells us in 42:5 that it was God “who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to its people and spirit to those who walk in it.” God not only made us, but He is the source of our breath and our spirit! Paul claims boldly in Ephesians 3:9 and Colossians 1:16 that God “created all things.” When God selects the chief craftsman for the Tabernacle, we are told in Exodus 35:31 that God “filled him with the Spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding, and in all kinds of craftsmanship.” It seems God has a hand in helping us to do what we do every day, as well. 1 Chronicles 22:12, it is proposed that only because God gave discretion and authority does the king rule. This idea is echoed by Jesus in the Great Commission, that all authority comes from God, and is mentioned again by Paul in Romans 13:1.
The Bible resoundingly states that God invested everything needed to make us, and make our world, and it would seem even our societies and technology. If this is the case, then the Bible indeed supports and points to the Investment Premise.
Objections? Counter-examples? Suggestions?
Here is the Creator’s Prerogative argument as a refresher:
P1: The Creator has invested everything needed to make their creation
P2: The Creator has a specific purpose and function intended for their creation
P3: The Creator continually provides everything needed for the creation to function according to the Creator's intentions
C: Therefore, the Creator has Creator's Prerogative, the right to expect and require the creation to function according to the purposes and intentions of the Creator, and even to create consequences in the event of failure to do so.
My purpose, here, is not to disprove evolution – I am not a scientist. My purpose is to show that the tenets of evolution, at a fundamental level, are wholly incompatible with Christian philosophy. In order for this argument to help me, then, I must prove that the Bible supports its premises. Over the next few posts, I intend to do this very thing, premise by premise.
We start with the first premise: the “Investment Premise.” I argue that the Creator (God, in this case) has provided/invested everything needed to make His creations.
Here’s what the Bible has to say about this point: Genesis 1, of course, points it out clearly. God speaks, and the authority and power attached to His command bring the things He names into being. Sounds like investment to me! What about Psalm 148:5, where David says that “He commanded and they were created,” after listing the things of creation. Isaiah tells us in 42:5 that it was God “who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to its people and spirit to those who walk in it.” God not only made us, but He is the source of our breath and our spirit! Paul claims boldly in Ephesians 3:9 and Colossians 1:16 that God “created all things.” When God selects the chief craftsman for the Tabernacle, we are told in Exodus 35:31 that God “filled him with the Spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding, and in all kinds of craftsmanship.” It seems God has a hand in helping us to do what we do every day, as well. 1 Chronicles 22:12, it is proposed that only because God gave discretion and authority does the king rule. This idea is echoed by Jesus in the Great Commission, that all authority comes from God, and is mentioned again by Paul in Romans 13:1.
The Bible resoundingly states that God invested everything needed to make us, and make our world, and it would seem even our societies and technology. If this is the case, then the Bible indeed supports and points to the Investment Premise.
Objections? Counter-examples? Suggestions?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Spiritually Secure, Intellectually UNimpressed
So I've been reading Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation. I heard that it was a leading book in the New Atheist movement, that Ravi Zacharias had written a response, and that the book was sweeping the nation. So, I bought the book to see what all the fuss as about.
I'm twelve pages from done, and I don't know, honestly what the fuss is about. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, they're forces to be reckoned with, who have legitimate arguments that need to be dealt with. But Sam Harris has constructed a leaning Tower of Pisa out of toothpicks and mini-marshmallows and is trying to pass it off as the latest Pentagon-designed weaponry against Christian thought.
Of course, no new atheist writing will ever "undermine" Christianity; that would be saying that someone could write a book that would destroy the law of gravity. It's not possible, from my point of view. Christian thought (which is not an oxy-moron, as Harris claims) will always be able to defend itself, assuming it's truth, as I do. Hence, I am spiritually secure at the end of the letter, despite the countless promises by critics(Christian and non-Christian alike) who say that the letter will shake the very foundations of my faith.
Intellectually, though, I'm disappointed with the work. I wanted something deep, something strong, an argument that would take real think power to undo. Sam Harris, if he's as smart as the NAs believe him to be (and I think he is), could easily undermine his own arguments with a little iota of thought. The only daunting part is the sheer number, but careful inspection belies their flimsy, faulty construction. I wanted a challenge, I got a fuzzy lollipop stick (how disappointing).
What I'm wondering, though, is how wrong I am for feeling that way. Is it arrogance that craves the chance to debate NAs? Am I being humble when I can see on every page how his Atheism argument can't hold a candle to my Christianity? The answer to both is yes. If I "love my neighbor as myself," should I want Sam Harris to be a powerful NA? If I care about the fate of his and all immortal souls, should I be disappointed with the flimsy nature o his argument? The answer to these, is no. Balancing intellectual pursuits with spiritual duties is always hard, and I've fallen.
And in that simple realization I'm grateful for the 100 millionth time that God is real, is gracious, and that He loves me.
I'm twelve pages from done, and I don't know, honestly what the fuss is about. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, they're forces to be reckoned with, who have legitimate arguments that need to be dealt with. But Sam Harris has constructed a leaning Tower of Pisa out of toothpicks and mini-marshmallows and is trying to pass it off as the latest Pentagon-designed weaponry against Christian thought.
Of course, no new atheist writing will ever "undermine" Christianity; that would be saying that someone could write a book that would destroy the law of gravity. It's not possible, from my point of view. Christian thought (which is not an oxy-moron, as Harris claims) will always be able to defend itself, assuming it's truth, as I do. Hence, I am spiritually secure at the end of the letter, despite the countless promises by critics(Christian and non-Christian alike) who say that the letter will shake the very foundations of my faith.
Intellectually, though, I'm disappointed with the work. I wanted something deep, something strong, an argument that would take real think power to undo. Sam Harris, if he's as smart as the NAs believe him to be (and I think he is), could easily undermine his own arguments with a little iota of thought. The only daunting part is the sheer number, but careful inspection belies their flimsy, faulty construction. I wanted a challenge, I got a fuzzy lollipop stick (how disappointing).
What I'm wondering, though, is how wrong I am for feeling that way. Is it arrogance that craves the chance to debate NAs? Am I being humble when I can see on every page how his Atheism argument can't hold a candle to my Christianity? The answer to both is yes. If I "love my neighbor as myself," should I want Sam Harris to be a powerful NA? If I care about the fate of his and all immortal souls, should I be disappointed with the flimsy nature o his argument? The answer to these, is no. Balancing intellectual pursuits with spiritual duties is always hard, and I've fallen.
And in that simple realization I'm grateful for the 100 millionth time that God is real, is gracious, and that He loves me.
Monday, August 17, 2009
And So God Taught Them Mercy
The second half of the book of Joshua is little better than a list of cities, regions, and borders, as they were divided amongst the tribes of Israel. To someone as unschooled in Middle East geography as me, these chapters may as well be in the original Hebrew, I cannot even begin to guess the size of the areas the Bible draws out in these areas. Amid all this division of land, though, come 6 verses that fascinate me to no end.
“Then the LORD spoke to Joshua, saying ‘Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, “Designate the cities of refuge, of which I spoke to you through Moses, that the manslayer who kills any person unintentionally, without premeditation, may flee there, and they shall become your refuge from the avenger of blood. He shall flee to one of these cities, and shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the city and state his case in the hearing of the elders of that city; and they shall take him into the city and give him a place, so that he may dwell among them. Now if the avenger of blood pursues him, then they shall not deliver the manslayer into his hand, because he struck his neighbor without premeditation and did not hate him beforehand. He shall dwell in that city until he stands before the congregation for judgment, until the death of the one who is high priest in those days. Then the manslayer shall return to his own city and to his own house, to the city from which he fled.”’” – Joshua 20:1-6
How absolutely fascinating! A system of law that looks at the heart and intent of the wrongdoer and not just the action. How just like a God who saves. Intent is everything here. If the manslayer is proven to be without intent, he is free from punishment under this system. God taught the Israelites mercy by establishing these cities, he taught them the power of forgiveness. God had never supported the “wrong for a wrong” principle, and now He was setting up plans that frustrated such fleshly goals.
Imagine for a moment that we live in ancient times. While hewing wheat in the fields, I accidentally scythe your brother rather than the wheat. The males in your family would hunt me down, and kill me for what I had done. My family would then rise up against yours. Welcome to the classic blood feud. However, what is plain to the reader of Joshua is that the Israelites power, just like humanity’s power before the fall of Babel, lies in unity. By destroying the presence of blood feuds, God retained the unifying strength of His people. By teaching them how to forgive, He kept them from killing each other.
And so God taught them mercy…have we learned the lesson?
“Then the LORD spoke to Joshua, saying ‘Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, “Designate the cities of refuge, of which I spoke to you through Moses, that the manslayer who kills any person unintentionally, without premeditation, may flee there, and they shall become your refuge from the avenger of blood. He shall flee to one of these cities, and shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the city and state his case in the hearing of the elders of that city; and they shall take him into the city and give him a place, so that he may dwell among them. Now if the avenger of blood pursues him, then they shall not deliver the manslayer into his hand, because he struck his neighbor without premeditation and did not hate him beforehand. He shall dwell in that city until he stands before the congregation for judgment, until the death of the one who is high priest in those days. Then the manslayer shall return to his own city and to his own house, to the city from which he fled.”’” – Joshua 20:1-6
How absolutely fascinating! A system of law that looks at the heart and intent of the wrongdoer and not just the action. How just like a God who saves. Intent is everything here. If the manslayer is proven to be without intent, he is free from punishment under this system. God taught the Israelites mercy by establishing these cities, he taught them the power of forgiveness. God had never supported the “wrong for a wrong” principle, and now He was setting up plans that frustrated such fleshly goals.
Imagine for a moment that we live in ancient times. While hewing wheat in the fields, I accidentally scythe your brother rather than the wheat. The males in your family would hunt me down, and kill me for what I had done. My family would then rise up against yours. Welcome to the classic blood feud. However, what is plain to the reader of Joshua is that the Israelites power, just like humanity’s power before the fall of Babel, lies in unity. By destroying the presence of blood feuds, God retained the unifying strength of His people. By teaching them how to forgive, He kept them from killing each other.
And so God taught them mercy…have we learned the lesson?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)