Oct

15

Apparently critical thinking isn’t important if you want to critique Genesis

Filed Under Ideas, Philosophy, Theology | Leave a Comment

A recent article on Inside Higher Ed discussed Christian schools that want to teach, or at least permit, various elements of evolution in Christian education. As in most cases, the claim from the ‘evolutionists’ is that the scientific evidence clearly casts doubt on the creation account in Genesis. It’s remarkable to me that few ever bother to articulate the evidence they think is so convincing. Maybe that’s because it ends up being a bit less persuasive than they’d like.

Here’s an example, from Gordon College’s president R. Judson Carlberg:

Studying the geological evidence, he said, makes it hard to credit the the "young earthers" who believe that the Bible is the only guide needed to date the earth: "If you accept the young earth argument, you have to think that God is trying to trick us [with the geological evidence] and I don’t think He would do that." Carlberg said he wants to see Christian colleges speak out publicly about their ability to embrace faith and science

I agree that God wouldn’t try to trick us. But how exactly is God being deceptive here?

First, God told you what He did, so it’s hard to see how an old-looking Earth would count as some kind of intentional deception on His part. It would be a little like insisting that an old-looking photograph is clearly an antique, even though the photographer told you that he made it look old in Photoshop.

Second, if this account is just a myth or a moral tale or something, not intended literally, then many later biblical writers, and Jesus himself in fact, perpetuated the literal interpretation of the passage erroneously. Perhaps you could make a case for biblical writers’ error. But if the accounts of Jesus’s words are accurate, then you have God Himself lying to His hearers. In that case, I don’t see how we’d avoid the “God deceived us” problem. Note that Jesus’s comments on the matter are indirect, but they’re loaded with theological import. So if you want to say that Jesus got it wrong, or Paul, or whomever, then you’re going to have to deal with a theology that loses its moorings in reality pretty fast. The problem is that the “literal” account is pretty unambiguous throughout Scripture (and it isn’t just in the so-called ‘disputed texts’ either).

I don’t mind respecting the right of someone to hold a view that gives more credence to evolution than I do. I just wish they’d actually advance some serious arguments (and evidence) to bolster the view, particularly if they want to portray those to the right of them as hopelessly naive.

May

20

Dan Brown and American Religion

Filed Under Ideas | Leave a Comment

Ross Douthat, a columnist for the New York Times, serves up a fine article: Dan Brown’s America. Brown is, of course, the best-selling author of The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons, both of which have been made into hit movies. Douthat suggests that Brown’s success relies on — or at least is a symptom of — a shift in American public religion.

Douthat argues that American religion has devolved into vague spirituality, divorced from any sort of structure or serious doctrine. His critique of ”spiritual” or “religious” Americans is insightful, but he doesn’t let them off the hook. The New Testament does not present religion this way.1

These are Dan Brown’s kind of readers. Piggybacking on the fascination with lost gospels and alternative Christianities, he serves up a Jesus who’s a thoroughly modern sort of messiah — sexy, worldly, and Goddess-worshiping, with a wife and kids, a house in the Galilean suburbs, and no delusions about his own divinity.

But the success of this message — which also shows up in the work of Brown’s many thriller-writing imitators — can’t be separated from its dishonesty. The “secret” history of Christendom that unspools in “The Da Vinci Code” is false from start to finish. The lost gospels are real enough, but they neither confirm the portrait of Christ that Brown is peddling — they’re far, far weirder than that — nor provide a persuasive alternative to the New Testament account. The Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — jealous, demanding, apocalyptic — may not be congenial to contemporary sensibilities, but he’s the only historically-plausible Jesus there is.

For millions of readers, Brown’s novels have helped smooth over the tension between ancient Christianity and modern American faith. But the tension endures. You can have Jesus or Dan Brown. But you can’t have both.


  1. One might argue that it doesn’t quite present Jesus in Douthat’s way either back↩

May

18

Philosophers’ World Cup

Filed Under Ideas, Random Thoughts | Leave a Comment

I had never seen this before, but it cracks me up.

Apr

9

Creative poll interpretation?

Filed Under Ideas, News, Politics | Leave a Comment

A recent Rasmussen poll seems very odd to me. According to the survey, 53% of Americans think that capitalism is better than socialism. Considering just that tidbit, it seems like America is experiencing a significant ideological shift.

But when you look a little more, only 20% say that socialism is better than capitalism, and 27% “don’t know.” Rasumussen specifically notes that they didn’t define either term, which leads me to think that this poll might be a better indicator of Americans’ economic understanding than their ideological stance. Rasmussen cites another poll in which 70% of respondents prefer “free markets” over some alternative. Rasmussen interprets this as evidence that Americans aren’t convinced that are markets are free. It might just as well mean that people don’t know what capitalism is, and don’t know what free markets are1.

It is also interesting that socialism is far more popular among younger people. Perhaps many of the older generations remember the Cold War better, and because they lived then, have a better handle on the differences between capitalism and socialism. It could also be that older people typically have more “skin in the game” and thus actually care enough about economic policies to know their preferences.

It seems that the headline tries to shock by suggesting that support for capitalism is weak. In fact, the details seem to suggest that economic understanding is weak. A comparison to an earlier poll with the same questions would help, but it looks like Rasmussen might be trying for a shock value without much backup.


  1. The term “free” has a strong emotive appeal in America, and people often will gravitate toward things that are “free” regardless of whether the thing is actually “free”. One wonders how people would respond if the term were “liberal economics.” back↩

Mar

18

A degree in creationism in Texas?

Filed Under Education, Ideas, Politics | Leave a Comment

A recent story on FoxNews describes a Texas legislator’s attempt to allow the Institute for Creation Research to award a Master of Science degree.  It appears that the bill would exempt certain types of non-profit educational institutions from regulation by the state higher education board.

In particular, it seems that ICR is the intended beneficiary of this change, which apparently would allow them to grant the M.S. without state permission or regulation.

Some thoughts:

It is in a sense unfortunate that education has become such a political football. I have absolutely no problem with the state controlling education in a limited sense. It is in the interest of the state to do so. However, the politicization of education means that serious discussions about its goals and procedures will be heavily colored by political rhetoric. Again, the political rhetoric is necessary in the abstract, but modern American political rhetoric is simply too weak to substantively address the weight of a robust educational debate.

I don’t know that I would support this bill. On the one hand, I think it would be a good thing if ICR could issue an M.S. It sounds like much of the opposition is ideological — the education board doesn’t want to condone, or possibly even permit, creationism. But the bill would have far wider consequences. Basically it would allow non-profit, non-government-funded schools to invent and issue whatever degrees they wish. Eugenie Scott, quoted in the FoxNews article, makes this very point, and with good support.

It sounds like ICR is appealing to the state board for the right to issue the degree under the current statute. I think this is the route to take. I’m sure the state representative is well-meaning, but I fear that his approach is likely to further discredit schools like ICR.

In the news article, Scott claims that ICR’s offering is vastly inferior to UT’s or Baylor’s. According to his article, his primary concern is the ICR position that the Earth is only about 10,000 years old. I fail to see how this point is relevant, except in the sense that it treats seriously a view that a fairly decent percentage of Americans actually hold.

I would be curious to see exactly how ICR is pursuing their court appeal with the state board — on what grounds to they claim the right to issue the degree?

So it seems there are actually two issues here. First, ICR claims the right to some sort of equal protection/fairness for their views, religious though they may be. I tend to side with them on this point, at least in a qualified, theoretical sense. Second, the bill at hand proposes to vastly expand the powers non-profit groups to award state-recognized degrees. I tend to oppose this point. It is not in the interest of the state or most of its citizens to devalue degrees. But it looks like several critics of the bill are conflating these two points. They recognize the impact of the bill, but they can’t seem to get away from their instinctive opposition to a creationist perspective. I think the best solution would be for the state to find a way to objectively assess the quality of ICR’s program, without any prejudice for or against a religious position and its implications, and then to grant or deny the degree based on the assessment. The bill is too much

Feb

24

Getting It to Christian Students

Filed Under Education, Ideas, Theology | Leave a Comment

Summit Ministries as a couple of very good articles about teaching a Christian worldview (Part 1 and Part 2).

A quote that particularly struck me:

There simply is no substitute here for equipping students to dive deeply into the Scriptures. At the same time, however, it is important to help them dive into the Scriptures in the right way. Unfortunately, many students have only seen the Bible handled poorly by other Christians. Often, their only experience with the Scriptures include it being replaced by therapeutic clichés, utilized and memorized completely out of context, tacked on but not central to a lesson, strangely pieced together with other verses to make a point, proof-texted to supplement a devotional book or song lyric, or largely ignored.

Feb

10

The failed policies of the past

Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment

President Obama seems to be floating a logical contradiction. He derides the Republicans for spending too much in the last 8 years, claiming that they now have no right to accuse him of excessive spending. But if the “policies of the past” have been too much spending, how does more spending become a break with the past? Note below

October 21, 2008 (on TARP)

It’s an economic proposal that does nothing to rebuild our economy, but everything to continue the same failed policies of the past eight years – when speculators gamed the system, regulators looked the other way, and lobbyists bought their way into our government. It’s the same failed politics of decrying greed on Wall Street one minute, and then rewarding that greed the next minute with tax cuts for Wall Street corporations and CEOs.1 It’s the same failed philosophy: give more and more to those with the most and hope prosperity trickles down to everyone else.

Note the shift from October to February. No longer does he decry the “failed policies.” Now he calls them “failed theories.” Nice shift. It lets him ignore what actually happened while attacking the Republicans’ stated philosophy. Thus, since his philosophy is different (so he says), he can claim to be breaking from the past.

Feb 9, 2009 (Press Conference)

“What I won’t do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, because those theories have been tested and they have failed. And that’s part of what the election in November was all about. Okay?”

“When I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then, you know, I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history….when they start characterizing this as pork without acknowledging that there are no earmarks2 in this package — something, again, that was pretty rare over the last eight years — then you get a feeling that maybe we’re playing politics instead of actually trying to solve problems for the American people.”

“When it comes to how we approach the issue of fiscal responsibility, again, it’s a little hard for me to take criticism from folks, about this recovery package, after they presided over a doubling of the national debt. I’m not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility.”

The Republicans’ lack of discipline is coming back to bite them, but at this point, I suspect the American public is less interested in the errors of the past and more interested in the prospects of economic improvement. Isn’t that what this whole “looking forward” approach is all about?


  1. At least he’s not doing this anymore. Wall Street execs are going to get slammed, even as he decries their greed. back↩
  2. Definition, please? I don’t think many people really believe this line. back↩

Next Page →