I decided to respond in length to one of the posts that I've read so far (entitled "A Difficult Dilemma: Deny that Humanity is Fallen, or Deny Evolution?"), and I thought I'd republish my comment here for you all to read:
"What up Dr. Wrisley (should I call you George?),
Maybe I can shed a little bit of light here. I do agree that the "Jesus as the only way to salvation" thing could possibly seem problematic. How you view the solution to the problem depends upon how far you swing to the Armenian end or the Calvinist end of the predestination spectrum. For those who swing heavily to the Armenian end, this is why the Great Commission is so important. For those who swing more heavily to the Calvinist end, these verses from Romans 1 are huge: "19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." (NLT)
As for the evolution question, this is a debate that is too complex to be solved in one simple comment. However, for me personally, what it comes down to is that I don't think the evidence for evolution is that overwhelming. I can see the evidence for microevolution, but for evolution to take place on a macro scale... it raises so many questions. Even from the first day I heard the theory explained in biology class, I just thought, "That doesn't make sense. When exactly does one animal stop being one species and start being another? And what happened to all of the other animals that came in-between?" And as I've studied the topic in more detail, I have only raised more questions. For a brief overview of some of the evidence for the existence of the Christian God as I see it, please feel free to read this essay: http://www.cranialcollision.com/2011/02/evidence-for-existence-of-christian-god.html I wrote it 4 years ago now, so please forgive some of the diction, and possibly the tone in spots. It could definitely do with an update, but I still strongly believe that the basic arguments are true.
Finally, lately I have been thinking about the possibility that Christians have a philosophical ace-in-the-hole when it comes to the evolution debate. I say a "philosophical ace," because it is not grounded in scientific fact, but philosophical theorizing. This "ace" is the idea of "apparent age." Essentially, this boils down to the chicken-or-the-egg dilemma, but according to the Genesis account of creation, it seems that the chicken wins. According to the account, God made all sorts of creatures and plants and, finally, humans. And apparently he made them full-grown... it would have been tough for Adam to feed himself and name all of the animals as an infant. Carrying this line of thinking one step further, what if the rest of the world REALLY had some serious apparent age incorporated into it? What if the geographic record was made to look ancient? What if creatures were meant to look like they evolved (but I still challenge this point)? This thinking would be congruent with everything I've read in Genesis. Interesting stuff to contemplate. No hard evidence, but food for thought...
Thanks for the blog post, I enjoyed it! I think it is important that we keep asking these questions and think critically about the topic.
Later,
-Greg"
I just got a response, and it is turning into an interesting discussion (this post originally drafted a couple of weeks ago). I hope George doesn't mind me republishing this, but here was his thoughtful response:
"Greg, “George,” is certainly fine. Thanks for the response to the essay. And thanks for the information on the Calvinist vs. Armenian views. Regarding the claim that “For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God” it seems to me one could agree with that, i.e., that a God is revealed through nature, but such a natural revelation does not point to the Judeo-Christian God. In fact, depending on how fallen you think the world really is, it might be problematic to find God in the world.
The evolution issue is, indeed, too big to settle here. But I would recommend reading Philip Kitcher’s *Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism*
http://www.amazon.com/Abusing-Science-Case-Against-Creationism/dp/026261037X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314834116&sr=1-1
Regarding your blog essay on God’s existence, while I am sympathetic to some versions of the cosmological argument and some versions of the fine tuning version of the teleological argument, neither of those arguments get you a Christian God, nor one who is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. The moral argument isn’t any good either, I don’t think. You seem to set up a false dichotomy: either morality is from God or there isn’t really any morality (subjectivist theories and relativistic theories are the only other option and they are wrong). But that ignores the non-theistic moral theories such as virtue theory, deontology, and consequentialism. They are not so easily dismissed as the moral relativisms. And the divine command theory has serious problems as does some kind of Thomistic natural law theory.
Regarding the ace in the hole, it doesn’t seem to me consistent at all with the Judeo-Christian God to say he’s such a deceiver as to make the earth look billions of years old than it is. I can’t imagine an all-good God doing that.
And I certainly agree about the need to keep asking these questions! Thanks again!
George"
He raised several interesting points that I haven't spent a great deal of time thinking about before, which was awesome! I responded again:
"Yes, there is definitely a difference between “general revelation” and “special revelation.” Since general revelation will only get yo so far, this gives missionaries their drive to “go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.” (Mark 16:15) Personally, for me this dilemma has boiled down to the concept that God is an infinite being, and we cannot begin to fathom his plan in the universe or how he works. (Think Romans 11:34)
I do agree that this doesn’t lead you to the Judeo-Christian God, which is why apologetics goes further and examines other religions as potential sources of truth. I do think that if these arguments hold water, there is serious evidence for omnipotence and omniscience, as well as a monotheistic God (think the moral argument plus Euthyphro’s dilemma).
Thanks for the book recommendation. I’ll definitely look into it when I have time, but I’ve got a pretty big reading load this semester ;)
I have only studied deontology and virtue theory briefly, and have not spent much time at all with consequentialism. But from what I do know of these theories, it seems that it isn’t too tough to set up a situation where there is a contradiction or a question that said theory cannot answer. Also, with deontology, we have the question of “where do the rules (duty) come from?” And in virtue theory, where did Aristotle get his virtues and his vices?
You may have a point regarding apparent age, I need to think about this, although I wouldn’t say that it would necessarily be deceptive if indeed it was the case.
Thanks for the response! Definitely gives me plenty of food for thought…
Obviously, my knowledge of some of these theories is lacking. ;) I probably need to spend some time doing some independent study on these.
Thanks again for the response!"
Your Turn: What do you think about proper tone, diction, and vocabulary when discussing the existence of God with someone that might disagree with you?
'Speak the truth in love'. yes. Both you and your professor are professionals and behaving and dialoguing as such and I would expect nothing less. But, Gregory...always know this...many people will sound convinced and smooth and accurate...until...you hold everything up to the light of God's Word.
This may not sound politically correct and, well, so be it.
Jesus said, " I am the way, THE TRUTH and the Life..."
By the way, I love the verses once again reminding us about His fingerprints on His creation from Romans 1!
memore
Thanks for the encouragement! :)
Greg, I just saw this. I appreciate it. And I think you're right to emphasize it as an example of a discussion of God and religion that is respectful and productive. It's all-to-easy, as you know, for such discussions to go astray into anger and frustration.
Regarding Anonymous, I'd like to say that while I hold certain views more strongly than others, I'm not convinced about anything, if by "convinced" you mean certain. There is very little that is off the table for doubt and questioning for me. One of the few things I "preach" in class is the importance of trying to balance conviction and humility. We need to hold some beliefs with conviction in order to engage earnestly and passionately with life. But we should also have the humility to realize that we're fallible creatures and that any given belief we have could be wrong; thus, we should always be willing to consider other perspectives and reasons for beliefs that go counter to our own.
Regarding holding everything up to the light of God's Word, that's fine, but what is God's Word? I assume you mean what is written in the Bible? For example:
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?"
But what does that mean? I understand the basic idea, but when it comes to understanding so that it can be thoughtfully applied, there is room for interpretation. And at the point of interpretation, you're inserting your own fallibility into things. If you say that God guides your reading of it, I'll ask why you think that. You may answer: you have Faith in God and his guidance. But the problem with that is that another Christian will interpret those same words differently, all the while having Faith that she's being guided by God in her reading.
Dr. Wrisley, Or..may "I call you George"? :)
You have a great point! "We need to hold some beliefs with conviction in order to engage earnestly and passionately with life"!
I totally agree.
A Balance between humility and conviction is also an astute insight.
James 4:10 "Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will lift you up."
I would propose, also, the futility of wasting time looking to " take the speck " out of my brother's eye. This would indeed hinder my search and understanding of Truth and also love.
Jeremiah 29:13 "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."
Faith. Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."
I do NOT believe real truth is attainable without a measuring rod or plumb line, if you will.
Isaiah 28:17 "I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line..."
Proverbs 4:11 also promises us that we have the Lord as our Counselor. There are so many resources, books, experts, studies, published papers and research out there, but in the end, for me... I love Proverbs
"I will instruct you in the way of wisdom and lead you along straight paths."
In the end we look to Someone or something as our measuring rod.
Who or what will it be?