Adam & Eve, and the Doctrine of the Fall

After reading a couple of posts by Maverick Philosopher here, as well as here, I began to think about what the story of Adam and Eve and 'The Fall' means. 


A bit of a problem was pointed out by a guest-poster on the site, where he noted in the first link why he has problem with the doctrine of sin, and subsequently the doctrine of submission. He believes in classical theism, we submit ourselves to divine authority, seeking his forgiveness, because we have sinned. But he feels the doctrine of sin rests on shaky ground, namely, the story of Adam and Eve. Now, I think this is a bit of a slippery slope. Even if one is to interpret the story of Adam and Eve in a way that they find inconsistent, it does not follow that we have not ourselves sinned, and are thus not needing to submit. There would be many reasons to submit to divine authority, not simply for seeking his forgiveness. Nevertheless, what he pointed out got me thinking.


In Genesis 2: 17, the Lord tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In subsequent verses, Eve is tempted by the serpent, eats from the tree, shares it with Adam, and they are both punished by God. The interesting thing is this: Did Adam and Eve have knowledge of Good and Evil before they ate from the Tree? To put it bluntly - if Adam and Eve did not know what they were doing, was it just for God to punish them? The following pentad is presented:


1. If God punishes, God punishes justly.
2. If God punishes an agent justly, then that agent is a moral agent that deliberately does something wrong.
3. A moral agent possesses the knowledge of good and evil.
4. God punishes Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit.
5. Adam and Eve did not possess the knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the forbidden fruit.

From this, we have to reject one of the limbs of this argument in order to make it valid. We can't have all five. Which one would you attack? (1) and (4) seem out of the question right off the bat. 

Maybe it's helpful to examine what exactly the story of Adam and Eve tells us. Was God just in punishing Adam and Eve? I would say yes, because He told them deliberately not to eat from the Tree. Now, the only way this means anything is if Adam and Eve are able to understand that disobeying this would be wrong, or sin. Clearly we think this, because Eve recognizes that she should not eat from the Tree, and see's it as wrong. So I would reject (5) as the obvious limb that goes away - Adam and Eve must have had knowledge of good and evil prior to eating from the Tree.

The tough question, I guess, is why call it the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? If they had the knowledge beforehand that what they were doing was in fact a sin, then they did not acquire this knowledge from eating from the Tree. But if we deny this, then it would seem God punished Adam and Eve unjustly, since they knew not what they did.

Another interpretation is that Man was not Man, but simply an animal before he ate from the tree. In this sense, eating from the Tree allowed man to shrug off his animal innocence and become Man. In this type of interpretation, we are sort of side-stepping the above five options, and saying that Man wasn't a moral being until eating from the Tree. However this creates all sorts of problems, namely we would now say that Man made himself in God's image. Man took the action that made him an image bearer, which creates much deeper problems.

The story of Adam and Eve, and the Fall, has meaning when applied to each of our lives. I often think of the innocence of a child when I think of this story. In a sense, Adam and Eve were like children before the Fall, oblivious to their nakedness and innocence. Up until a certain age as children, we are also shameless. Despite having a knowledge of good and evil, we have yet to act in a way that we deliberately disobey someone, knowing full well that we are doing wrong. This is what Adam and Eve did, and by doing this, they introduced sin into their relationship with God, in the same way we do when we sin before God.

The question, to me, is why exactly is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil given that name? I'd appreciate comments as to your own interpretation of the Fall, and how you feel about this story. 

Is Doubt a Good Thing?

I want to write this post as a warning to myself: If someone seems all to sure of their position, take it with a grain of salt. My thirteen posts prior to this one are very one-sided, far from being fair in terms of presenting both sides equally. Hopefully I can take a more balanced approach in future posts. Philosophy of any kind should be a communal quest towards truth, not a bashing of differing viewpoints.


Can one be an intellectually honest atheist? Of course. Atheism, at least the kind that is contemplative (as opposed to those who are atheist because they want it to be true. Or for pragmatic reasons) will be atheist because they find the arguments for theism less than convincing. I am a theist because I find the arguments for theism to be convincing to me. Or perhaps it's that I cannot accept what the alternative entails from a metaphysical perspective. But I need to be open to those who hear the same arguments I hear, see the things I see, and don't feel the same way. Surely there are atheists who ask if a theist can be intellectually honest in the same way I pose the question to the opposite party.


This seems to relate, however vaguely, to the concept of 'burden of proof.' Concerning the existence of God, is the burden of proof on the theist or the atheist? It's an interesting question in a way, because both alternatives seem odd at first glance - and it's almost surprising there is no middle ground (one can be agnostic, of course, but that doesn't mean that agnosticism could be true. Either God exists, or he doesn't). If God exists, then this world would presumably be his creation. But yet one has to understand the difficulty in even imagining such a being as God, and keep oneself in check from believing something comforting simply because it's comforting. To put it better - the believer will be skeptical that he is not tricking himself - because sometimes it seems too good to be true. If God doesn't exist, then everything has happened by blind, mechanical chance, and everything that this entails. The atheist, however, has to rely on other means to explain phenomena in the world - which in the most dogmatic cases resorts to ignoring valuable lines of evidence against his or her worldview. If any of this has to do with burden of proof, i'm not sure, but I do believe the burden is on the theist. In other words - one should not believe in a deity because he has not heard evidence to the contrary. In even other words - one should not default to theism, even though many (most?) do.


If someone is too sure of their atheism, I will question whether they have adequately and honestly dealt with all arguments, as well as reconciled empirical phenomena to a naturalistic (if they hold this) viewpoint. If someone is too sure of his theism - I will wonder if he experiences doubt. If he says he does not, and never has, then he most likely has never questioned his childhood upbringing. I will wonder whether he doesn't find his vantage point too good to be true. It's important to remember that people much more clever and much more well-read have followed the same path of doubt and questioning, and have, and will, continue to come down on opposite ends of the spectrum.


Perhaps the best opinions to consider are those who have gone back and forth at some point in their lives - people who have let the evidence sway them from their ideologies, in one way or another. In the end, however, the choice has to be yours. I do hope, however, that whatever people choose it will show an impact on their way of live. Belief, or lack of belief in a divine entity, is no small thing, and it should show itself in one's life.


In the end, people are seeking truth, and people should not forget that the quest for this truth should allow the evidence to carry them wherever it will.

Mind over Matter - Quantum Theory and the Mind

"If a person does not feel shocked when he first encounters quantum theory, he has not understood a word of it." - Niels Bohr, Physicist

Part of the staying power of naturalism can probably be attributed to the absolutely bizarre conclusions quantum theory leads us to. Many naturalists maintain a bottom up definition of physics, which has the brain as a series of physical causes and effects, just like everything else in nature - which renders consciousness a bi-product of evolution, and free will an illusion. However with the establishment of quantum theory in the early 1900's, and it's development over the 20th century by later physicists, mankind has been led to new insight in the mind-body problem, as well as a completely new view on the operation of the universe.

Newtonian physics was based on determinism, the assumption that an observer did not effect a system being observed. Thus, in classical, Newtonian physics, the mind was rendered moot - and for those who wanted to have both, the mind had to be viewed as something physics could not effect. While Newtonian physics is a good approximation at the macroscopic level, quantum mechanics is physics at the microscopic level. Perhaps the most shocking part of quantum mechanics is this: attributes associated to subatomic particles, such as spin, direction, and momentum are not just unknown until measured, they do not exist in any definite state until measured. All subatomic particles exhibit this phenomena: when observed, they will behave as a particle, with measurable attributes. When unobserved, they will behave as a wave, with attributes only approximated by the Wave Function, which can predict where the electron may be. In other words, the electron does not have a definite location until observed, which corresponds with the collapsing of the Wave Function into measurable attributes.

This leads us to a new conclusion, one presented by physicist and mathematician John Von Neumann. According to Von Neumann, since all of material existence is quantum mechanical, the process that collapses the Wave Function must be something immaterial. Von Neumann reluctantly concluded the first interaction that particles could have with something immaterial, in theory, would be consciousness, or the mind. Throughout the late 1900's, experiments were done to see not just if consciousness could effect matter, but if it could control it in any measurable sense. Using Random Event Generator experiments, Helmut Schmidt tested whether a person could will the results to be anything other than pure chance. A huge database was collected, and it was discovered that the event an observer willed occurred approximately 51% of the time. Due to the huge number of tests, the odds of this happening were around one in one trillion due to simply pure chance. Due to this, as well as other subsequent experiments, quantum mechanics brought the effect of the mind back into popular physics.

Another odd effect, which will come into play when discussing mind-brain interaction, is the Zeno effect. Physicists have found that if they observe an unstable particle, it will never decay. In other words, physicists can 'freeze' an unstable system by continuous observation. Atoms are no longer thought of us impenetrable balls, but rather as probabilities. With this new conception of matter, physicist James Jeans wrote

"The universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a machine."

Most importantly, quantum mechanics has lead to new, interesting theories of mind-body interaction, most of which are dualistic and can accurately account for phenomena observed. Because it is now accepted in orthodox quantum mechanics that observation plays a role (other proposals, such as unknown variables, multiple worlds, etc, are less popular), the interaction between mind and brain can be better understood - the gap between mind and brain can be better explained without resorting to throwing away free will. According to Henry Strapp, the mind can concentrate for a given period of time and create a brain state that will be a 'template for action,' or voluntary motion. This can be shown in examples such as weigh-lifting, when the force able to be exerted is less when the mind is distracted. In other words, utilizing the Zeno effect, the mind can force a certain template to be held, allowing action to take place. This theory is further developed by Evan Walker, who breaks processes down even further, to the level of the electron itself. These theories all involve a dualistic nature of the mind, or a non-material entity which is able to effect the probabilities of atomic motion.

According to Chris Carter, author of Science and the Near-Death Experience, the only objections to the newly developed and dualistic theories are non-physicists who continue to hold onto a materialistic understanding. Others, due to philosophical reasons, think these new theories should be replaced by ones that render consciousness causally inert - reducing electron movement to pure randomness yet again. He feels neither of these has any rational basis in contemporary science.

This new dualistic understanding can account for phenomena such as the placebo effect, where a medicine is more effective than it should be in healing the patient due to one's feeling that the medicine is in fact helping. It can also allow us to understand phenomena such as the NDE, and psychic abilities. Although physicists will not contend on whether the mind can exist without the brain, this new dualistic philosophy of the mind, grounded in physics, changes the way one perceives human interaction with the environment.

I read once that Stephen Hawking believed the universe could have spawned from the collapse of an equation due to consciousness, similar to that of the Wave Equation collapsing when observed. This brings up two questions: Who put that equation there? And even more startling - who looked at it?

The Message from Outside the Cave

In Plato's Allegory of the Cave, he talks of society as persons in a cave, staring at shadows on the wall. The philosopher is like the person who steps outside of the cave, and is able to see the light, bringing a message from beyond. For a Near-Death experiencer, they too are able to see outside the cave that is this world, and they can only hope that those inside the cave are willing to accept what they have seen.


The following is the Foreword in Science and the Near-Death Experience. The book is written by Christ Carter, and the Foreword is written by Neal Grossman. It's a great message to hear, and I hope you can enjoy it:

"Thus far, I have been regarding the materialism paradigm as on a par with other such paradigms that have been overturned in the course of the history of science, but I believe that there is something rather special and different about the present situation. There is a message hidden in all this research, and it is a message that successful academics do not wish to hear. The message is universal love. Every near-death experiencer is convinced that the purpose of life is to grow in our ability to give and receive love. And NDE researches - as well as mediumship researchers - have themselves come to this same conclusion, but academic life is the opposite of loving.

Both science and academia are organized around the same principles that structure the corporate world: success in one's career depends a little on talent, but mostly on competition, self-promotion, and so forth, that is, on personality traits that have little to do with curiosity, intelligence, or intellectual honesty, to say nothing of love. Those who have been most successful at this - the ones who control the journals, decide who gets funding, decide who gets tenure - hold power in science and academia because of personality qualities that are opposed to the message of universal love. They believe, and need to believe, that the purpose of life is to "win," to be successful and influential in their field of study.

Many academics would be horrified to learn what all near-death experiences have learned. A successful life is not measured by fame, prestige, wealth, or number of publications; it is measured by how we treat one another, by our ability to live according to the golden rule, and by growth in our ability to feel compassion for others."

Who Will Guard the Guards?

"Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding....." 

-Plato

A skeptic is someone who questions the truthfulness of a given assertion. And the more radical the assertion, the more overwhelming the evidence has to be. These people are the hypothetical 'guards' to the truth, - guarding it from the bogus claims of potentially religious fanatics. The problem is, while these guards are meant to challenge controversial assertions of those enslaved to an ideology, they themselves have become enslaved the the ideology of naturalism. Claims are no longer viewed in a serious scientific light, but rather scrutinized under the assumption from the get-go that they must be false, and any justification they can give is better than what these people claim to have seen or experienced. Nowhere is this ideology more prevalent than in the assessment of Near-Death experiences.


When one thinks of religion, one typically assumes some type of belief in the afterlife. To many, this belief is viewed as wishful thinking, and it shows how fearful people are of death. Because of this fear, religions created the concept of the 'soul,' which survives after death - which they will say has absolutely no bearing on reality, and is completely a man-made invention. However, with globalization, the commonality of near-death experiences, as well as their striking similarities have been revealed for all, sparking a new sect of scientific (in some cases pseudo-scientific) research into the actual possibility that life-after-death may in fact be.


Approximately 5% of the population have experienced either a NDE or OBE (out-of-body experience). For people who are actually 'near-death,' approximately 1/3 have a NDE, and this number is probably is low, for reasons you can read about here. NDE's occur across all cultures, all races, and can be seen in documentation in various cultures throughout history. There are around eleven common elements of NDE's, and the usual person experiences around six to seven of these elements. The experience usually includes some variety of the following: a great being of light (this is the most prevalent, and powerful element in NDE accounts), a tunnel-like sequence, talking to deceased loved ones, feeling extremely loved, feeling like they are returning home, heightened perception, a life-review, communicating with religious figures, and being told they must (or can choose) to return to their body. The NDE'r typically does not fear death after his or her NDE, and actually welcomes it, seeing it as merely 'biological death.' The NDE'r usually becomes much more 'spiritual' as a result of their experience. Perhaps most importantly is that the NDE'r usually does not doubt that what they experienced was real, and does not believe that they were hallucinating.


Now the first response would be to ask if we can believe what these people are telling us. The obvious problem is the huge number of people who have experienced this, as well as the commonality most experiences share. If I told you I saw a polar bear in downtown Telford, you would probably be skeptical - and for good reason. If millions of people told you they saw that polar bear, it would be unreasonable to conclude they are all lying. The only way there wasn't a polar bear in downtown Telford is if these people, in one way or another, are deceived. 


The next set of theories attempts to provide a naturalistic explanation for NDE's. You don't have to go far, however, before it becomes clear that a naturalistic explanation just cant solve all of these experiences. For example, take a NDE'r or OBE'r who follows his family around the hospital and sits with them in the cafeteria while they eat lunch, and after the NDE'r is healed, they proceed to tell their family the conversations they had while the NDE'r was in a coma. One could argue that this NDE'r could be imagining all of this, even though they are seeminly flat-lining, but one cannot explain in any naturalistic sense how a conversation taking place far away from their body could be overheard, and accurately retold. Once we realize that naturalism cannot explain this, the rest of the phenomena, which otherwise must be explained as some type of delusion, make much more sense. Does it seem realistic for those who are hallucinating to experience heightened perception? And if these people are hallucinating, wouldn't one expect them to at least by cynical as to what they've experienced?


This same type of skepticism is what produces Christ-Myth theories. If we are to believe that Christ didn't exist, then we have no more reason to believe that just about anyone before the time of Christ existed. We have reference to the historical Jesus is the accounts of Josephus, as well as later Roman Emperors to corroborate with the evidence given in the Bible. If the same set of scientific and historical standards were applied to evolution and Alexander the Great, we would feel completely different the actuality of both of these things. Historians who approach the historical Jesus without bias are able to recognize this, as seen in the video below:

The above examples lead me to believe that anyone who approaches the question of God with an open heart will find reason to believe in God. Many of the greatest minds throughout history, such as Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Kant, Aquinas, and Descartes were all theists in one way or another, so you're in good company (Aristotle is questionable, as he believed in a 'Prime Mover'). There are many reasons to believe in God, or merely to believe naturalism is false, as I think NDE's clearly provides, and I think those who approach spirituality as actual skeptics will be rewarded with the evidence available.

Biblical Symmetry in 1 Peter/Psalms

I saw this, and I thought it was interesting enough to document:


Psalm 118:22:

"The stone that the builders rejected has now become the cornerstone"

And then in 1 Peter 2:4:

"You are coming to Christ, who is the living cornerstone of God's temple. He was rejected by people, but he was chosen by God for great honor."

Now, I'm assuming that Peter is referencing Psalms when he writes this, and this isn't pure coincidence. If it is pure coincidence, that makes it even more remarkable. Nevertheless, the fact that verse 22 is even in Psalms is surprising. In fact, when reading the whole Psalm, it barely even makes sense in its context, yet Psalms was the most popular book found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so as far as I know there's no way this verse was inserted after the life of Christ.  The verse in Psalms is very much like what happened: The builders (Israel) rejected one of their own (Jesus), and he's now the cornerstone of the Christian church, later elaborated on in 1 Peter as seen above. 

"Some of Us Just Go One God further"

"Some of us just go one God further" - Richard Dawkins

Do you now? Maverick Philosopher has this to say on this quotation:

"I've seen this quotation attributed to Richard Dawkins. From what I have read of him, it seems like something he would say."

I've seen this a bunch of times actually on various atheist websites. I didn't know until I searched that it was Richard Dawkins. From what I gather, I guess the idea is that Christians wouldn't go around worshiping Ra or Allah or Zeus. The idea is that we're all atheist to all but one God (unless your Hindu, then it's a bunch), so we just go one further than you. You don't believe in Surya, so why believe in the God of Abraham? 

First off, this isn't really an argument against theism, this is more directed at religion. Atheists seem to think that all Gods are on the same level, and that there is no good reason to reject all but one - might as well go all the way and make it a clean sweep. What seems to escape Dawkins is the idea that perhaps 'Ra' or 'Zeus,' while depicting God in weird forms, is still mans search for the divine, some deep seeded desire to know one's maker. That's what it boils down to for me - going that last God, as Dawkins is saying, is removing all aspect of the divine, which is removing something most (not all) religions have in common. The fact that religion has become progressively more monotheistic, more simple and less human in it's idea of God - that's what I see. The statement implies no divine, no mind behind the universe, and man is the ultimate being.

Is this to say I think it's okay to go around calling God 'Ra'? Well, not exactly. If one looks at the progression of religion, I think we are getting closer and closer to God's true nature. To backtrack and start worshiping Mithra is probably something God wouldn't appreciate, especially since he sent his Son for us as an example. Do I think it's a big deal what God is called? Well, by calling him Ra or Zeus, you are associating not just the divine, but also a human image with Him (as well as any other character traits, stories, etc, that may not be appropriate). So while I don't think it's a big deal, I think it's a big deal. 

Like the slow march of evolution, religion, and our concept of God has gotten gradually better and better with time, and to backtrack would be like wanting to go back to being an ape or single-cell organism. We grow up in a specific culture, and will most likely adopt that particular religion as our mechanism for serving God. Does that mean I think all religions have an equal slice of the pie? No, I think some are 'more true' than others, but it certainly doesn't mean that one can wipe out the divine completely just because persons have viewed God differently in the past (see Bertrand Russel - teapot). I think one's focus should be more directed at how our perception has matured with time - not at wiping the slate entirely. 

Near-Death Experiences

I wanted to post something on Near-Death Experiences (NDE's), to help add another piece of the evidence not only that naturalism is false, that a 'soul' or 'mind' exist, but also as evidence for God and the possibility of the afterlife. There is a good summary here that talks about some of the current understanding of NDE's. Here are some of the basic points:


-There are approximately thirteen to fourteen million people in the United States, (2% of the population) and at least fifteen million more around the world that have had an experience defined as a “near-death experience”


- There are eleven basic elements in NDE's. Nobody experiences all of them, but people usually experience six to seven.


-Numerous people have told of hearing or watching their doctors or other spectators, declare or pronounce them dead. Often they feel like they are another person in the room somewhere, watching the whole thing like a spectator, but being unable to feel anything associated with their own body. 


-The existence of light is probably the most common and dominant element in the accounts of NDEs. It is this, which has the most profound effect upon the individual being.


-The love and warmth which ‘emanate' from this light are beyond words.


-Astonishingly, many people describe the light as having a personality. People recount it having a sense of humor, and it being fun to be around. A little girl who died in a swimming pool, and who then told about her experience simply said, “You'll see, heaven is fun” 


-When one dies, reviews ones are commonly recounted. The review is usually in the form of a ‘movie' which will show some irrelevant and some significant things about one's life. Watching the review is just like being part of it, standing there in the scene as a spectator. 


-In many cases, various unusual sensations are reported to occur at or near death; sometimes they are extremely unpleasant. Often it is a really loud, uncomfortable buzzing noise that rings, or other times it is the experience of intense unpleasant feelings. “I had the feeling of being lonesome… I was completely alone, by myself… I really felt a fit of depression then."

-This could be a form of what many religions call ‘hell'. These experiences seem to be much rarer, but maybe they are just so uncommon because people feel uncomfortable talking about them since they are hell-like and may indicate that the person has lived a bad life.

-“In the presence of the light, the thoughts or words came into my mind: ‘Do you want to die?' And I replied that I didn't know since I knew nothing about death. Then the white light said, ‘Come over this line and you will learn.'… As I crossed the line, the most wonderful feelings came over me - feelings of peace, tranquility, a vanishing of all worries."

-This experience shows how life and life after death are separated, and how the experiences people have, are just an inter-phase to life after death. 

-The people that had NDEs also get a totally new picture of what death is like! Most of the time they enjoy it so much that they are not even afraid of dying - not a single bit. 

What I find most impressive about all these experiences are the number of persons who experience them, and also just how convinced they are themselves that what they've seen is real. I think it's foolish to say that all of these millions of people are simply 'making it up.' It's possible it's a type of hallucination, but given the similarities between the experiences, as well as how convinced the people are of what they've seen, I'd say this is all remarkable evidence. Here is an archive over on SubmersiveThinking that has NDE's in video, if you want to judge for youself. Also, here is a list of quotes from persons having NDE's and what they've meant to them. 

It's also important to note that the afterlife has been a common aspect in religion for a long time. Although it's been depicted differently from religion to religion, it usually revolves around common elements that seem to transcend religion. Perhaps NDE's, as has been suggested, have inspired and helped evolve not only past religions, but religions perception of the afterlife, and what's in store for us. Perhaps these images of light have helped humankind throughout history modify their image of God to one closer to reality. 

Dr. Kenneth Ring, perhaps the most respected of all near-death researchers, and the one who did most to put the subject on the academic map, says:

"Any adequate neurological explanation would have to be capable of showing how the entire complex of phenomena associated with the core experience [that is, the out-of-body state, paranormal knowledge, the tunnel, the golden light, the voice or presence, the appearance of deceased relatives, beautiful vistas, and so forth] would be expected to occur in subjectively authentic fashion as a consequence of specific neurological events triggered by the approach of death ... I am tempted to argue that the burden of proof has now shifted to those who wish to explain NDEs in this way."

Furthermore, there are many books written on out-of-body experiences, and you can read sample chapters of some material here.

And perhaps best of all,  here  is a report which outlines NDE's, what happens during them, and goes over why all other skeptical explanations simply fall short of adequetly explaining this phenomena.

What's at Stake

"There is also something exceedingly curious about hoping that one turns out to be just a material system, a bit of dust in the wind. "I was so hoping to be proved to be nothing more than a clever land mammal slated for destruction, but, dammit all, there are reasons to think that we are more than animals and have a higher destiny.  That sucks!""

For the atheist, by some happenstance, a universe was born. Whether it has always been, or some far-off science theory not discovered yet, the universe was born for no good reason. The fact that it appears 'fine-tuned,' if it really is all that fine tuned, is just happenstance. Or maybe we're part of some incredible multiverse with universe upon universe, new one's being created all the time, with our universe just a tine speck in all that. No matter how it happened, it's just sheer dumb luck that one planet in a galaxy of billions happened to be life-permitting, much less create life itself. Life continued to evolve and flourish until we have what we see today. Humans are just an accidental side-effect of evolution, and if we ran the whole thing over again, we probably wouldn't even get human beings. We all get a small little time-frame of existence, a time frame where we simply have the illusion of free will, and any real purpose. One day, after we're dead, and our kids are dead, and their kids, nobody will remember our name. And if you are one of the lucky few that does something impacting, it'll all get forgotten in time. One day the human race will die out, the earth will be destroyed, and even our universe will fizzle out to nothingness. 


All the questions we had in our life will be unanswered. All the justice we desired will be completely unfulfilled. We're just a sack of chemicals, and it's all just been a grand illusion. Any intentionality we thought we had was just a joke. We're nothing special, and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. All there is out in the universe is pitiless indifference. 


Or, as the theists sees it, we're in God's playground. The universe has been made, designed, hand-crafted by a God who wants us to exist. He has given us moral grounds to say what is 'right' and what is 'wrong.' He has given us a mind, something that gives us intentionality, something that allows us to have a purpose above the sack of mean we actually are. This life is just part of the adventure, and after this we get to see our true potential - when our mind is set free of this body. We will one day get to return to "The Source" or "The One," as it is called in many near-death experiences. 


What I can't understand is, why would anyone stick to the top paragraph in the face of evidence? If a theist is presented evidence from the problem of evil, he is allowed his belief in God due to array of theistic arguments for his existence (assuming they convince him). And if he concludes that there is evil in the world, he is left only to assume that they are compatible. Not being able to come up with how this scenario works is not reason to abandon his beliefs, simply to give it more thought. 


But for a naturalist who is presented with the problem of intentionality vs naturalism, even if he is to conclude that there is actually hope one day these two will be reconciled (which I doubt), I find it hard to imagine why this would be a view he would want to stick with. I understand atheists not wanting to believe something that isn't true, we all do. But why deny evidence that goes against a worldview that is so depressing in the first place? Why belligerently defend something that is both depressing and potentially (and in my opinion) wrong? I just don't know - the only conclusion I have is that ideology plays a big part. We want to be right, we don't want to change the way we live. Pride takes hold and it clouds our judgement. 

"Out of Nothing, Nothing Comes"

The Cosmological Argument, i'd imagine, is pretty tough for atheists, naturalists and scientists to argue against. Your choices are to argue that an infinite regress is actually possible (a la David Hume). Or, you can try and show that something can come from nothing. Well, I guess you can also just try and convince us that we are nothing:

A lot of talk being made about 'Virtual Particles' and the redefining of the word 'nothing.' This article here talks about a recent publication made by physicist Lawrence Krauss. Upon an interview, he is prompted to talk about how a universe could have come from nothing:

The "long-held theological claim" that out of nothing nothing comes is "spurious."  This is because "modern science . . . has changed completely our conception of the very words 'something' and 'nothing.' " We now know that " ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ are physical concepts and therefore are properly the domain of science, not theology or philosophy."  

First off, I'm not sure how 'out of nothing, nothing comes' is a 'theological claim.' It surely seems that nothing would actually entail nothing, and this would not be something that is 'theological' but just simply logical. Spurious, as it is defined, is "Not being what it purports to be; false or fake." So not only is the statement not what it purports to be, but it's just false. Krauss goes on to say:

"The old idea that nothing might involve empty space, devoid of mass or energy, or anything material, for example, has now been replaced by a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles, popping in and out of existence in a time so short that we cannot detect them directly. I then go on to explain how other versions of 'nothing'—beyond merely empty space—including the absence of space itself, and even the absence of physical laws, can morph into “something.” Indeed, in modern parlance, “nothing” is most often unstable. Not only can something arise from nothing, but most often the laws of physics require that to occur."

Maverick Philosopher, whose blog it is, gives us more or less what this means in layman's terms:

"If I tell you that I met nobody on my hike this morning, it would be a bad joke were you to inquire, "And how is Nobody doing these days?"  'Nobody' is not the name of a person or the name of anything else. If you are confused by 'I met nobody on my hike,' then I will translate it for you: 'It is not the case that I met somebody on my hike.'  The same goes for 'nothing.'  It is not a name for something."

Doing the liberty of investigating these virtual particles, I found the following:

The virtual particle forms of massless particles, such as photons, do have mass (which may be either positive or negative) and are said to be off mass shell. They are allowed to have mass (which consists of "borrowed energy") because they exist for only a temporary time, which in turn gives them a limited "range".

So at most, a virtual particle is just borrowed energy, not from nothing, but from something else. Furthermore, they only exist for a temporary time, so unless 13.72 billion years counts as temporary, i'd say it's a stretch. 

And, even if we grant that prior to the universe there was this sea of "boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles," how does that advance us any further? Presumable this "brew" did not start, but had been going on eternally, which would inevitably create a universe, see it die, and then after some more time create another one, repeat. So basically even if we grant this, we're still looking at things popping in and out of existence eternally, and thus we violate our infinite regress.

So not only is a virtual particle not nothing, nor is it creation ex nihilo, but it gets us no closer towards defeating the KCA. 

A Traditional Argument for Mental States

It would seem that it could go without saying that free will, and non-material mental states exist. For anyone who doesn't know why this is important, let me illustrate quickly. Naturalism believes that free-will is an illusion, since we are fully determined by our environment and DNA, as I talked about here. Furthermore, naturalism will assert that all things are either matter or energy. So, by attempting to prove that mental states exist that are in no way physical, I will abbreviate an argument found here, which you can read for a better version (which contains a link at the bottom to an even more detailed version. 

Say we create a man named Steve. Steve is perfectly knowledgeable in reading the brain. In fact, he has an instrument he places over his eyes which allows him to see all the activity going on in ones brain while on is thinking, from the firing of neurons to the movement of electrons. Now, to test whether his complete knowledge of the brain actually can allow him to understand what I am thinking, I will imagine something. I will imagine a dog, but not just any dog. This dog will be one that does not even exist in real life, but nevertheless, I imagine a dog that has a horn coming out of his head, three tails, six legs, two heads, and has scales and breathes fire. 

The question is, if someone where to completely have knowledge of one's brain and the movement of electrons, the processes that goes on within it, could they recreate the imagine I made in my head? More importantly, can he completely read my mind by looking at my brain? This is essentially the question - is the brain that which does the thinking itself, or merely a transmitter from mental states to physical states? In the above example, I would say no combination of neural states and electron movement could ever allow someone to recreate that image. The argument would look something like:


1.) Steve is able to understand all possible physical states of my brain.
2.) I am thinking about a specific type of dog.
3.) Steve cannot fully conceptualize the dog I am thinking of merely by looking at the brain
thus-
4.) Steve does not know my 'mental states' by looking at my physical states
5.) Since mental states exist, physicalism is thus false.

The argument obviously hinges on premise (3). The question to me is - does my brain look any different when I'm thinking about one dog than when I am thinking about another kind of dog? I would imagine it would not.

Furthermore, how is something that seems completely a mental state attributed in terms of physical things? At first glance, one might think the brain does the thinking. Clearly, consciousness, and thus one's mental states are affected by the physical. One's mental quickness seems to depend on the body, as we become quicker as we develop in our youth, and then it depreciates as we get older. We clearly are able to lose consciousness when struck in the head, so it only seems natural that the brain is what creates psyche. 

But this is altogether difficult to imagine. How can an atom have the feeling of blue? Or better yet, how can an atom feel happiness? What difference does it make if we put ten atoms together? or 100? or enough to make an arm? Does an arm have a 'self''? If the atoms and molecules and cells in the arm don't have a self, what makes them any different when arranged to form the glob we call a brain? This type of thinking is further expanded in an article located here.

The dualist, or one believing in a separation of physical and mental states, would use the analogy of the radio to illustrate the purpose of the brain. If one would take a sledgehammer to a radio, we would obviously notice the music would stop playing. But it would be wrong of us to assume that the radio is actually creating the music. Instead, we know the radio to receive the signal from another source. In the same way, the dualist believes the brain to be such that it transfers mental states to physical states. Obviously, how this process is done, if it is indeed done, is not something that is scientifically testable, and would be scientifically denied as being something that exists.  

Metaphysical Naturalism

The below quote is taken from another blog that I really enjoy looking at. It discussed many of the arguments surrounding God, but in particular discusses the implications of naturalism as a worldview, and what people who accept naturalism (and thus atheism) must believe. It's important to note that the implications of naturalism are some of the most convincing aspects towards belief in the supernatural (or God). Below is a quote from a leading philosophical naturalist Alex Rosenberg, where he fully understands the implications that naturalism has regarding our world-view. 

Really think about this. Many arguments for God are really the disbelief in what life without God, or the supernatural, would entail. People who ask to prove to them that there is a God are asking for the impossible, in the same way that it can't be proven there isn't a God. If the options are super-naturalism and naturalism, and we don't believe the result of naturalism to be correct, then we are left with accepting something more, namely the supernatural. Here is what Rosenberg has to say about the implications of naturalism:

 " It is of course obvious that introspection strongly suggests that the brain does store information propositionally, and that therefore it has beliefs and desire with “aboutness” or intentionality. A thoroughgoing naturalism must deny this, I allege. If beliefs are anything they are brain states—physical configurations of matter. But one configuration of matter cannot, in virtue just of its structure, composition, location, or causal relation, be “about” another configuration of matter in the way original intentionality requires (because it cant pass the referential opacity test). So, there are no beliefs"

I hope your able to see what happened there. Because naturalism is assumed from the onset to be true, we thus arrive at the conclusion that we have no beliefs, because a 'belief' cannot be a configuration of matter, no matter how elegantly arranged it is. Now what do you believe is the more likely conclusion, that we have no beliefs, no free will, and are completely caused by our environment and DNA, or that naturalism is false? If naturalism is true, the implications are tremendous. This means that we are completely 'caused' by nature, just like everything else, and we all have the illusion of free will, which has developed over thousands of years of evolution. To push this idea further on it's implications, quoting Richard Dawkins, renowned atheist biologist:

"But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Faulty car?"

The above is not just completely wrong, and stupid, in my opinion, but it's also dangerous. If our minds are completely determined by our environment and DNA, then we have no real blame for acting in the way we do. We are simply a product of our environment and DNA. Well what caused those? Well our environment is largely due to the actions of other people in how they interact with us, and our DNA from our parents, and their parents and so forth. So really, if we trace the cause of this all the way back, we are just as right saying, "The Big Bang made me do it," when confronted about a crime. Like the above quote mentions, we might as well just abolish the judicial system and punishment for our crimes. Dawkins goes on to say that he believes one day, we'll laugh about the fact that we used to punish those who committed crimes.

This is the type of backwards science that the assumption of naturalism produces, as seen with the multiverse. Since naturalism must be true, than the premises are worked to fit the conclusion (that naturalism is true). But shouldn't we follow the premises towards the conclusion they logically lead us towards, even if that be doubt (or rejection) of naturalism? The multiverse is only a theory because it attempts to explain away the supernatural (or highly unlikely) probability that our universe could contain life.

Even more, if naturalism is true, then we are a complete accident, and really nothing matters at all. It's easy to see why belief in God can seem illogical at times, picturing an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being who created everything, but the problem is without Him in the picture, things make even less sense. The following is a quote from Jime at Subversive Thinking, who I linked above:

"But if naturalism is true, which is the ultimate purpose of an objective moral order? Human beings are accidental by-products of evolution. No afterlife exists. No free will exists. The universe as a whole is going to dissapear in the future. No spiritual reason for the universe, or for our specific existence, exists at all. All is part of a mere accident of a purposeless and blind material evolution, in regards to which we have zero importance. What's the ultimate purpose of obeying the moral rules in a purely naturalistic universe? In such naturalistic universe, only utilitarian and pragmatic reasons could be offered to being moral (i.e. it is useful or strategically conventient to be moral), but not ultimate purpose or trascendent consequence exists for such behaviour. And no explanation exists for an objective (human mind-independent) existence of such moral order in a purely materialistic universe."

Fine-Tuning Argument

The fine tuning argument, to put it simply, is science's way of observing that the initial conditions for our universe had to be set so precisely in order to create a universe that allowed life to grow. Conditions such as as the mass of the proton, neutron, the gravitational force, cosmological constant, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, are very suitable towards sustaining life. If you want to find out more about just how crazy the odds are, there is lots of good information you can read on the internet. Really, what I find important are the objections to the fine-tuning argument. I think the Fine-Tuning Argument is best thought of after consider the implications of the cosmological argument. All in all, the fine-tuning argument shows that we seem to be extremely lucky, and it's not unreasonable to think the universe was 'designed.' If we saw a group of 50 expert marksman lined up in a firing squad fire, and they all missed the target who was several feet from them, we would not conclude that they all just happened to miss, but rather that they all missed on purpose. Such is what the fine-tuning argument implies. Here are some of the responses:

Multiple Universes: I like science. And I have just about the utmost faith that science is not trying to undermine religion. But in the case of the multiverse (as well as science concluding we don't have free will), it seems to me that the conclusion supports the premises, not the other way around. The multiverse should be labeled for what it is: an attempt to explain 'Design' out of the picture. String Theory notwithstanding, the multiverse has absolutely no proof. If you ask how many universes are in the multiverse, it becomes clear that the purpose is to eliminate design. So the number of universes is however many it takes to make the probability that one will support life decent. Now, I don't necessarily think anything wrong about the possibility of multiple universes, but as of now, this theory needs to be labeled for what it is. If you believe in the multiverse, you are using just as much faith as anyone of any religion has ever needed.

Self-Organizing System: I've heard this one thrown around the blogosphere, that systems organize themselves. Two things. First, the constants are typically not related at all, at least up to this point by any scientific theory, and thus, it's unreasonable to think that they are able to interact in a way and organize. More importantly, even if a system was able to organize itself, why would it organize towards being life-permitting? There is no reason to think it would move towards a life-permitting universe over a non-life permitting one. 

Argument from Imperfection: This turns the fine-tuning argument on it's head and states that actually, the universe is mostly rather hostile to life, and thus, could be much better if a designer was involved. First, I would argue how we can know what conditions would make a better universe? It's easy to imagine a universe worse off than ours for permitting life, but it's hard for me to imagine one that is much better. Second, this is to assume that if there is a God, he has no purpose for leaving a majority of the universe uninhabitable. To make this argument is to assume that a designer would create a universe capable of holding as much life as possible, with no other purpose involved, and I don't see why this would be the case.

All in all, the fine-tuning argument is more dangerous than the cosmological argument as far as being something to latch onto. It certainly adds evidence towards God, but it is not without some risk in latching onto. Like the cosmological argument, it uses the fact that we exist to explain our need for God.

Evolution & Creationism

For all believers, evolution is something that has to be dealt with in one way or another. We need to decide how we feel about it, and how it relates to the Bible. After reading The Language of God by Francis Collins, I became aware that I had no idea what I really believed, not just about evolution, but really in general. I had always grown up in the church, but I really hadn't put too much time into my faith, and looking back I realize I was hung up on the thought that maybe God was just "wishful thinking." Sometimes still, it almost seems too good to be true. Dealing with this, which all started with the 'debate' of evolution or creationism, has sparked a revived spiritual interest in my life, one where I want to tackle all of these big issues as best I can.

I'm just going to put this out there upfront - I accept evolution. My position is theistic evolution, for multiple reasons - the scientific, logical, as well as biblical. While I withhold full belief in macro-evolution for the time being, I certainly accept the basic premise of evolution. To me, the fact that creatures are able to 'evolve' is incredible, and points to something that desires creatures to survive and improve. All this said, here are the reasons I accept both:

First and foremost, Evolution theory is not a theory in the sense that I have a theory about why the Giants won the Super Bowl. Evolution theory is a theory like Gravitational theory, it's not something in question. If evolution is a complete lie, then the many other fields of science are also in fault. Science is such that nothing can really be known with absolute certainty, but evolution is not in the process of being doubted, especially at the microscopic level. If evolution isn't true, then the question would then become, "Why is there so much evidence to the contrary?" If we are completely secure in our belief in God, adapting to evolution should be the acknowledgement of God's awesome creation process. Obviously, I believe that God had his hand in evolution, guiding it, and most likely helping it to reach the state he wanted it. 

Just a side note. I've read on some peoples blogs that they would have their faith rocked if science confirmed abiogenesis. To me, I believe that we will perhaps find out how it could have happened, even if the odds are rather low. But I would not latch on that as a pillar of faith, because I believe God moves through the natural processes of the earth, instead of just spontaneously creating the first RNA.

I also believe the Bible lends itself to a non-literal creation account. First, in Genesis 1:13:

 "God said, "Let the land sprout with vegetation - every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit..."" 

This was on the third day of creation, with humans coming on day six. Obviously, this is the order it would have actually happened in natural history. However, in creation account two, we see in Genesis 2:5:

"Neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the Lord God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil."

It then goes on in Genesis 2:7 to say how God formed the man from the dust of the ground. So in the two creation accounts, we see a differing of the order or plant-life/humankind. Some see a gray area to say that perhaps certain types of plants were made in the first creation account, while different plants didn't grow until the second creation account.

Next, we have the story of Cain. If we are to take Adam and Eve as the two literal first human beings, then the world population of humans goes from four to three when Cain kills Abel. In Genesis 4:13, upon hearing his punishment, Cain replies to the Lord,

"My punishment is too great for me to bear. You have banished me from the land and from your presence; you have made me a homeless wanderer. Anyone who finds me will kill me!"

If Adam and Eve are human number one and two, then the only persons that would be there to kill him would be his parents. It seems unimaginable that Cain would fear his parents killing him, and even more so that he would call his parents 'anyone.' This strongly implies there are more than just these three people on the earth. Also, I can't imagine God being okay with his only three prized, image bearing creations going around killing each other. Cain killed Abel, yes, but if Adam and Eve joined in on the action that is a different matter.

Finally, in Genesis 4:17, we find out that Cain gets married, has a son named Enoch, and founded a city, also called Enoch, after his son. First, we are not told that Adam and Eve started having more sons and daughters until later in Genesis, chapter five. So even if we accept that God was fine with Cain marrying his sister, which seems to go against later law, we still have to rearrange the text, and assume it was written non-chronologically to even get a sister into the equation. Finally, it seems the use of the word 'city' would not be used if they were referring to just a gathering of a few huts. And if he did really build a city, who was it for and how did he build it all by himself?

I haven't gone through the other books prior to the patriarchs, but just from this, I see things that make me question if the original intent of the author (assumed to be Moses) was actually as a historical account. To me, it seems to imply that Adam and Eve were not the two first human beings, but perhaps the first two humans that God revealed himself personally to. This is referred to on the BioLogos forum as the Homo Divinus model. If Adam and Eve were real people, it makes much more sense with the genealogies presented to us in Genesis, as well as the New Testament Gospel accounts. Religion at this time was most certainly not monotheistic, but looking back, the three big monotheistic religions of the world today are Abrahamic in their roots, even going back to Adam and Eve. It's hard to say if monotheism would ever have made it's way as the worlds primary form of theism without this connection.

I also don't believe evolution is imposing it's will on the Bible, in the sense that it's forcing people for the first time to reevaluate their position. Over a thousand years before evolution, St. Augustine commented on the allegorical interpretation of Genesis. Here is a summary:

"In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul ("he created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally.Augustine also does not envision original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up."

In the end, having all the right answers when it comes to evolution and creation isn't the main goal. Will God hold it against anyone if we interpret the Bible differently? One reason I do worry about the belief in strict creationism has to do with some of the characteristics I see in many atheists. Oftentimes, you see that an atheist was born and raised in a particular faith, only to find out, usually in their late teens or 20's, that their interpretation of the Bible may be at odds with science, or the opinions of others. This oftentimes can cause a complete revolt from religion when their beliefs are held too strictly. I sometimes talk about these kinds of things with my volleyball group on Tuesday nights, and I do so because I'd rather have them think about them now, discussing them in a setting where they know they can trust those around them, then out in the world where someone only wants to crush your faith. To me, that's what I want to try and help others avoid, even if it means challenging your beliefs. We cannot all see the same thing when we read the Bible, which is part of the beauty of it. To some extent, accepting that other interpretations could be right, I believe, lends itself towards flexibility, like St. Augustine remarked.

At most, science can only show us the 'how' of the world, and can help us better understand God's creation. The false dichotomy that exists between science and religion is in my opinion completely unwarranted. In the same way that the church abandoned an earth-centered model of the universe as an interpretation of Psalm 104:5:"You placed the world on its foundation," I believe the church will one day accept evolution as an illumination through science on the original intent of scripture. 

The below link contains good information for those looking to learn about science and the Bible, especially pertaining to creation:

http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall