A Few Reminders about Evolution from an Atheist

Although Dr. Thomas Nagel and I don’t see eye to eye on the matter of God’s existence, I appreciate the intellectual honesty that he displays in public. For example, when it comes to why he doesn’t believe in God, Nagel says: "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope that there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."[1]

I appreciate that Dr. Nagel is willing to admit what many atheists aren’t – that there are a priori motivating factors that come into play where a belief system is concerned. Do Christians have such presuppositions (in the opposite direction, of course)? Certainly. But so do unbelievers, and it’s good to see one in that fold admit it.

Nagel has recently stirred up another ruckus with his new book, which carries a very interesting subtitle: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. In his book, Nagel brings up the issue of presuppositions entering into belief but then goes on to say much more:

Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.[2]

Nagel’s statements and position, I believe, serve as good reminders about how scientists can display very unscientific attitudes toward teachings that go against their worldview, and also that the world ‘evolution’ doesn’t mean everything that some would have you believe it means.

The Meaning of “Evolution”

In preparation for a debate[3] that William Lane Craig had with the evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala, Craig found that Ayala was upfront about the term ‘evolution’ and how it is an accordion style word. Ayala states that evolution can typically mean and/or refer to three different things:

1.      Present day organisms are descendents (with modifications) from organisms that lived earlier.

2.      Explanatory mechanisms that supposedly account for the specified complexity found in biological organisms.

3.      The reconstruction of the evolutionary tree of life that show all branches going back to one ancestor in the past.

Ayala candidly admits that while the first is true, the second two are matters of tremendous dispute among all scientists (religious or non), and there is much that is not known in these areas. This is why Nagel says that the arguments of scientists such as Meyer and others should be given a hearing in the public scientific arena.

When intellectually honest biologists say, “evolution is a fact”, they – like Ayala – refer to the first point. And, in truth, I don’t have any Christian acquaintances that deny that either.

But the second and third points are what intelligent design calls into question. For example, DNA coming into existence from a purely natural, unguided, non-intelligent source? You’ll find plenty of debate on that.

As to the third assertion, what about the studies that show humans and chimps have DNA similarities approaching 90-95%, and that the similarities between humans and mice is 90%? Does this absolutely prove a common ancestor? Not at all. Instead, it points to possible common material composition and a common Designer, which is in keeping with the first chapter of Genesis.

Let’s also not forget, that while philosophical naturalists act as reductionists and say humans are nothing more than their material composition, deep down we all really know different. The imago dei is there, just as Paul says in his letter to the Romans: “That which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:19–20, my emphasis).

One Atheist who got it

Anthony Flew used to be the “Billy Graham” of atheists, but in his later years he changed his position after examining the arguments for and against the teleological argument for God (i.e. the argument from and to design). He may have not become a Christian, but he did accept what the Apostle Paul wrote some 2,000 years ago about God’s design work being “clearly seen”.

In an interview before he died, Flew said: “The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a ‘lucky chance’. If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over.  No, I did not hear a Voice.  It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion. . . .I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the universe point clearly to an intelligent Source.  The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.”[4]

I could be wrong, but it seems Dr. Thomas Nagel is starting down on the same path as Flew. My prayer is that he comes into a saving relationship with Christ who is the One behind all the design that he sees.

---

[1] http://goo.gl/Ki9Yp

[2] Quoted in: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/noted_atheist_p063451.html.

[3] http://goo.gl/bYdNt, http://goo.gl/MwjfX, http://goo.gl/8E5ET, http://goo.gl/gaARz. You can listen to Craig speak about this at: http://goo.gl/9B1fh.  

[4] http://www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

What don't you like about Jesus?

Oftentimes when I engage unbelievers in dialog, it’s common to hear a litany of complaints about the Church, the hypocrisy of Christian’s behavior, and so on, with some of the criticisms being valid and others being without merit. However, because Christianity isn’t based on those things, but rather a Person, I do my best to bring them back to Jesus and have them focus on Him instead. A question I typically ask to do this is, “I hear what you’re saying, but let’s talk about Jesus for a minute. Tell me, what don’t you like about Him?”

The vast majority of the time there will be a very pregnant pause in the conversation, and for good reason. When Jesus was illegally put on trial by His enemies, Mark tells us: “Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any” (Mark 14:55). Christ’s enemies had literally dogged His every step, sent false disciples to try and trick Him into some verbal gaffe, and yet at the end there was absolutely no dirt they could drudge up against Him.

But every now and then, someone I’ve put my question to will bring up something they don’t like about Jesus. The two complaints below are the most common I’ve heard.

Jesus called a woman a ‘dog’

In the gospels, we find the following account:

“Jesus went away from there, and withdrew into the district of Tyre and Sidon. And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.” But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.” But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” And He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs”” (Matt. 15:21–26).

One objection I’ve heard against Jesus is that he disrespected this particular woman who had come to Him for help. Isn’t His initial silence and following response insulting?

A couple of things are worth noting in this encounter. First, Jesus deliberately went into Gentile regions (Tyre and Sidon), which no pious Jew would think of doing. However, He didn’t go there so much to minister as to take a break from the pressure put upon Him by Herod and the Jewish religious leaders.

In fact, He had previously and explicitly told His disciples to – at this time – focus on Israel and not the Gentiles (cf. Matt. 10:5). Non-Jews were not to be forever ignored, but rather Israel was the primary, initial target of Jesus for He was their promised Messiah who would unfortunately be rejected.

Next, His initial silence is likely due to her “Son of David” remark, which was a Jewish Messianic title. When she, a Gentile, came to Him on Jewish ground/terms, He was silent, but that silence would not last for long.

When the woman addressed Jesus as “Lord” (a respectful ‘sir’), He then likens her to a ‘dog’. However, the term Jesus uses for the woman is not the slur used by the Pharisees when referring to non-Jews. Whereas the Jewish religious leaders called Gentiles “kyōns” that were despised eastern street animals known for eating garbage and human waste, Jesus uses the term “kynarion”, which refers to a family pet or lap dog that is lovingly cared for by its owners. 

Jesus is not insulting the woman, but delaying His answer. Why the delay? We should always remember that every accepted prayer is not immediately an answered prayer. In much the same way that Jacob wrestled with God and would not let go until he was blessed and made Israel (cf. Gen. 32:28), this woman’s tenacity is being tested and will also ultimately be rewarded.

The story concludes this way: “But she said, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus said to her, “O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed at once” (Matt. 15:27–28).

The woman’s answer produces her desired end result. Moreover, Jesus lauds the woman by telling her that her faith is great. Interestingly, only two people are praised in this way by Jesus – the centurion whose servant was healed (cf. Matt. 8:5-13) and this woman – both of whom are Gentiles.

This particular story in the gospels showcases the distinction between the Pharisees and religious Jews, and someone not belonging to the covenant people. The religious leaders rebuff Jesus’ authority, are offended by His and His disciple’s conduct, and know the letter of the Law but fail to understand its application. This woman, however, is a descendant of the Jew’s ancient enemies, but approaches the King of kings with great faith asks only for grace; and receives her request.

Jesus taught about and believed in Hell

The skeptic Bertrand Russell wrote the following about Jesus in his Why I am Not a Christian: “There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and it is that He believed in Hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment . . . one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching. . . . I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty.”[1]

There’s no question a plain reading of the gospels shows that Jesus believed in a literal Hell and that He taught some people would spend eternity there. Some Christians who hold to what seems to be a disturbing and rising trend of universalism (that teaches all will spend eternity with God) try and diffuse the issue by referencing the early Church father Origen who claimed Hell was simply a ‘tutelage’ and sanctifying process of purging fire. The most recent and visible example of this was Rob Bell’s book Love Wins.[2]

However, no exegesis of Scripture, no matter how tortured/distorted, can overcome the clear teaching of Jesus on the subject. It may be something as explicit as Jesus’ end to the Sermon on the Mount where He says: “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matt. 7:13–14).

Or, it may be something more subtle as when Christ quotes the Psalms, “For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet’” (Luke 20:42–43), where the illustration referenced kings who put their feet on the necks of their enemies as a sign of their impending execution.

Jesus consistently and constantly referenced judgment and Hell, and for that, some people turn away from Him. But they shouldn’t; instead they should rush to embrace Him.

Those who question how a loving God (Jesus) can send anyone to Hell overlook two key things. First, they fail to realize that all sin is vertical before it is horizontal. Such sin is committed against an eternal God, and thus, that sin is eternal and demands eternal punishment.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone as justice and the degree of punishment are often linked to the status or importance of the person who is the target of the offense. As an example, threaten my life and no real legal action will be taken against you. But, threaten the life of the President, and you will find yourself quickly arrested and go missing from society for a long time.

Second, anyone doubting Jesus’ moral compass on the topic of Hell should understand the unique linkage between God’s mercy and justice. It’s a fact that in every religion/faith in the world – other than Christianity – the deity/god in question dispenses mercy at the expense of its justice. For example, in Islam, if Allah grants mercy to a person, he does so by weighing their good against their bad, overlooking the crimes they have committed, and never requiring any payment for those committed crimes.

But such a thing goes against our natural moral framework as well as our legal system. We would never think a judge righteous who let a thief or murderer go free simply because they have done good works in the past. The offender needs to pay for his/her crimes.

Christianity is different. In Christianity, God dispenses mercy through His justice. The truth is, we have all sinned against an eternal God and deserve the Hell Jesus spoke of. But because God is love and loves us, He provides mercy and a way to escape eternal punishment.

But, God is also just. Someone has to pay for sin, and Jesus willingly took that bullet for those of us who put our faith in Him.

In essence, Christ did die for His Church, but He also died for God in order to satisfy His justice. Paul spells out this fact when he says, “God displayed [Jesus] publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:25–26).

Is Jesus ‘bad’ because He taught about Hell? No, He is infinitely good in that He spoke the truth, and provides the mercy and love of God on the one hand and satisfied God’s justice at the same time for those who put their faith in Him.

What’s not to like about Jesus?

After His enemies had thrown everything and the kitchen sink at Him, the end result of Jesus’ six illegal religious and secular trials is summed up in Pilate’s words, “I find no guilt in this man” (Luke 23:4). Although some still try to deface His character, the same conclusion is arrived at today by those who approach Him with an honest heart and mind.

When deciding how to portray Jesus in his famed Chronicles of Narnia, C. S. Lewis chose the following way, which I think does a great job of depicting Christ’s nature and goodness: “Is he – quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.” “That you will, dearie, and no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver, “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.” “Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy. “Safe?” said Mr. Beaver. “Don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good.”[3]

---

[1]  http://goo.gl/mYjXB

[2] For a full refutation of universalism and Bell’s book, see my 3-part PPT presentation on slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/schumacr/heaven-hell-universalism-and-rob-bell-part-1, http://www.slideshare.net/schumacr/heaven-hell-universalism-and-rob-bell-part-2, http://www.slideshare.net/schumacr/heaven-hell-universalism-and-rob-bell-part-3

[3] http://goo.gl/7OJqr

Another Example of Hatetheism

Here's yet another recent billboard example of the 'tolerance', 'free thinking', and 'respect for one another' brought to you by hatetheism's pioneers (not atheism, which is much more respectful), American Atheists and David Silverman, which targets both Obama and Romney. These people may be the best thing to happen to Christianity in a long time.

Hate Speech or Truthful Talk?

Jesus was on a roll.

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in” (Matt. 23:13).

Addressing his primary antagonists, the Pharisees and scribes, Jesus built their unflattering profile at the beginning of Matthew 23 and then hammered them eight different times repetitively calling them hypocrites (vv. 13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29), blind (vv. 16, 17, 19, 24. 26), fools (vs. 17), lawless (vs. 28), and ending with this grand finale:

“You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?” (Matt. 23:33).

You don’t need to have a Ph.D. in theology or doctorate in Jewish studies to figure out that pious Jews don’t take well to being symbolically linked to the animal most associated with the devil. But that didn’t stop Jesus from telling them that’s who they were like.

Now, if this scene were played out on the Internet and media stage of 2012, how do you think Jesus would have been portrayed and characterized?

“Hater!”

“Phariseephobe!”

“Intolerant!”

I guarantee that Jesus’ words would be labeled as ‘hate speech’ and he’d be unfriended by countless on Facebook who would see his talk as ‘unacceptable’ for today’s times.

Whether it’s the recent Chik-fil-A episode or something similar, the #1 most used tactic in the public square to counter any criticism of personal actions or lifestyle is labeling the opposing argument or statement as hate speech. Never mind that the one making the claim is likely demonstrating their intense dislike (a.k.a. ‘hate’) for the one they’re opposing.

Are the ones constantly crying hate speech right in their accusations or have they redefined what hate is and given birth to a new term whose sole purpose is to wrongly stigmatize the opposition and further their agenda? Let’s take a look to find out, while also examining how Christians are commanded to handle themselves in today’s volatile environment.

What is Hate and Hate Speech? 

Dictionary.com defines ‘hate’ in the following way:

hate   [heyt] , hat·ed, hat·ing, noun verb (used with object)

1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
3. to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.

Now, I’m guessing that most everyone would agree with the above definition. Moreover, all would likely not argue that there are genuine times that something should be hated. Like Solomon said, there is “A time to love and a time to hate” (Ecc. 3:8).

However in today’s postmodern culture, it’s no surprise that the term ‘hate’ has been clandestinely redefined in the public arena where ideas are exchanged. The postmodern philosophy, which can succinctly be defined as a worldview that affirms no truth (except, of course, the truth that no truth can be affirmed…), carries with it a linguistic component that distorts both what words mean and how they are used.

Beginning with the Swiss linguist Saussure and continuing with other philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Derrida, the idea of redefining words by the individual has led up to where words like ‘hate’ are changed to be something much different than what they actually are.

Today, ‘hate’ has been altered to signify: any attitude or expression that opposes how I behave, and what I want to do and practice.

This is oftentimes classified as the terminological fallacy, which is when a term is altered and then used to support a position or argument. For example, it can be seen in the definition of hate speech that comes from uslegal.com:

“Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.”[1] 

All seems well with the definition up until the final sentence. Is an expression of hatred to be equated simply with what offends a particular person or group? If so, then classify Jesus as a purveyor of hate speech.

Should Christians Ever Hate? 

This raises the questions of if Christians should really hate anything, and if so, how that hatred should be expressed. The Bible is not shy when it comes to answering ‘yes’ to the question of if hatred is, at times, appropriate. However, the object of hate is important to see and understand:

“There are six things which the Lord hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers” (Prov. 6:16–19).

“You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of joy above Your fellows” (Psalm 45:7).

 “From Your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way” (Psalm 119:104).

“The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverted mouth, I hate” (Prov. 8:13).

“’These are the things which you should do: speak the truth to one another; judge with truth and judgment for peace in your gates. Also let none of you devise evil in your heart against another, and do not love perjury; for all these are what I hate,’ declares the Lord” (Zech. 8:16–17).

“Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” (Rev. 2:6). 

Sin, evil, and that which opposes God’s truth are to be hated. But people? Jesus is clear: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:43–44).

But such a thing doesn’t mean that difficult confrontations, like those recorded in Matthew 23, won’t ever happen.

What Should Christian Speech Sound Like?

Once we understand what Christians should and should not hate, we next need to know how we should go about expressing it. Again, the Bible is clear:

“Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Colossians 4:6).

“Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Ephesians 4:15).

“But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). 

Scripture says there is a right and wrong way to tell someone they have a spot on their shirt, and makes it plain how we are to go about telling someone that. This does not mean, however, that we are to stay silent when confronted with actions and behavior God dislikes. Paul warns us to, “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Eph. 5:11). A good example of the wrong way to do this would be how the Westboro Baptist church handles things, whereas a right way would be how Chik-fil-A’s Dan Cathy went about affirming traditional marriage.

What about invoking violence (which is part of the uslegal’s hate speech definition)? Again, the Bible is unmistakable on the subject: “The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates” (Psalm 11:5).

One thing is certain though – even when we do speak up in the Biblical way, we can most times expect a reaction from the world that mirrors what Jesus experienced with His corrective teachings and rebukes.

What Should Christians Expect?

Jesus finished one of his discourses in a very interesting way: “Blessed is he who does not take offense at Me” (Matt. 11:6). The word “offense” in the Greek is “skandalizo” from where we get the word “scandal”. It means to shock through word or action, or give offense to and anger.[2] 

The truth is, Jesus and His teachings do cause offense; the Bible specifically said He would: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame” (Rom. 9:33).

When the world gets offended, you can expect some of those who decry hate speech to use the most hateful words in existence against those who stand against them. This, too, is spelled out clearly in the Bible:

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you” (John 15:18–19).

“Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you” (1 John 3:13). 

The truth is, it is not hate or hate speech that reproves a person for sinful behavior. In fact, it is just the opposite.

Speaking the truth about sin has also never been popular; it always has offended and it always will. But, Billy Graham makes an important point about Who to care most about in this regard when he says, "Our society strives to avoid any possibility of offending anyone – except God".[3] 

Jesus’ words in Matthew 23 may seem harsh, but they were spot on, appropriate for those who had blasphemed God’s Spirit (cf. Matt. 12:32), and were in no way hate speech. Pointing out moral wrongs and sinful behavior is not hate, but instead it can be the most loving thing a person can do because ungodly actions have eternal consequences. Jesus’ words, plus the work of the apostles, evidently hit the mark with some of their opponents because the book of Acts records the following: “The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7, my emphasis).

Some will receive God’s corrections and some will not, with the reactions telling you much about the person with whom you are dealing: “Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, reprove a wise man and he will love you” (Prov. 9:8).

No matter the response, our reaction should always be to continuously share the gospel message (Matt. 28:18), bless those who persecute (Rom. 12:14), bear up well under any abuse (1 Pet. 4:16), and respectfully ask those who oppose God’s teachings, “So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16).

---

[1] http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/

[2] Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (926). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[3] http://www.christianpost.com/news/billy-graham-says-his-heart-aches-for-sinful-deceived-america-78949/