Another “living fossil” discovery pokes holes in the secular Macro Evolutionary theory.
AP | Ali Sultan | July 16, 2007
ZANZIBAR, Tanzania – Fishermen have caught a rare and endangered fish, the coelacanth, off the coast of the Indian Ocean archipelago of Zanzibar, a researcher said on Monday.
The find makes Zanzibar the third place in Tanzania where fishermen have caught the coelacanth, a heavy-bodied, many-finned fish with a three-lobed tail that was thought extinct until it was caught in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. Since then two types of coelacanth have been caught in five other countries: Comoros, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar and Mozambique, according to African Coelacanth Ecosystem Program.
“Fishermen informed us that they caught a strange fish in their nets. We rushed to Nungwi (the northern reaches of Zanzibar) to find it’s a coelacanth, a rare fish thought to have become extinct when it disappeared from fossil records 80 million years ago,” said Nariman Jiddawi of the Institute of Marine Sciences, which is part of the University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania’s commercial capital.
. . . more
Discussions about origins of the earth and life are usually doomed from the start because the terms are not defined up front. As a result, people end up talking past each other endlessly. So, why doesn’t everyone take a stab at defining these terms:
evolution
common descent
darwinism
theistic evolution
theistic darwinism
My bet is that everyone involved in this thread has different meanings attached to each of these terms
Jim, Note 50, how could you not understand after all this time
Dean describes himself as an Orthodox Christian. Michael was responding to Dean in the context of the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Michael considered Dean’s positions to be inconsistent with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Since, Dean, asserts that he is an Orthodox Christian, Michael may have a point.
Jim, after all this time, how could you not understand this aspect of Michael’s comment? Really, Jim, we are talking about a matter of years now.
This raises another point, debating with you is like writing on water. The same point is explained over and over and over again. You don’t really respond with a counter-argument you just adopt the now, very tiresome pose of “I’m just asking questions.” Questions which the writer answered. After the answers are supplied, it is appropriate for you to address the answers, which you rarely do.
Jim, Note 50, straw man argument and non-acknowledged underlying assumptions
This is a straw man argument.Many authors have noted that Christian religious belief is held up to ridicule and scorn in America with great regularity. The ACLU has devoted millions of dollars and millions of manhours to pushing Christianity out of the public sphere. To assert that religion is held sacred as a matter of course is simply inaccurate in America. Strawman number one.
You believe you have a clear idea of what is “plausible.” It is very clear to you. You believe you are challenging the “implausible.”
What you are not stating is how do you decide what is “plausible.” In general, atheists begin with the unchallenged and unprovable assertion that religious truths must be “implausible.” The very idea of asserting that a God exists and might act within His creation is, per se, implausible to you. Fine except that this constitute another unprovable assumption which is the bedrock of your mental world.
You have your own unacknowledged articles of faith. Among those unacknowledged articles of faith is the belief in science as a fountain of uncontestable truth. However, just a few weeks ago, you engaged in a long discussion with me, about the contingency of scientific theory. You claimed great insight into the theory of scientific knowledge and took great pride in pointing out its contingency and temporary nature.
Strawman number two. Religious beliefs are not given an automatic pass and no one on this board has suggested that they should be. Again, I find it somewhat amusing that you are now taking the side of scientific “truth” as against so-called “religious truth” when you were arguing in favor of the transitory nature of science just a few weeks ago.
Questions atheists need to answer. What would make them believein God?
The primary characteristic of a provable hypothesis is that it is testable. Example, a fortuneteller never tells someone that a lightning will strike on Tuesday, April 11 on the corner of Jackson and Main in Memphis, Tennesee
This is a testable hypothesis and they know they will fail the test.
Here is my test for atheists. Every atheist I know starts with the bedrock assumption that the very idea of God is absurd and that such ideas always are a result of ignorance or guile. My question is “what would it take to get you to believe in God.”
My assertion is that is the archangel Michael appeared in all his splendor with a choir of angels behind him to an atheist, the atheist would conclude that he was having a hallucination and seek the help of a psychiatrist. In short, there would be nothing that would convince the committed atheist. All manifestations of God would be considered to be hallucinations and the proof derived from the observation of nature would be considered to be something “scientifically” explanable. But, all science is based on the assumption that the universe is fundamentally orderly and that it is subject to laws. For example, we don’t think that Newton’s law of gravity held true in the 18th century but is no longer true in the 21st century. This is because we believe that the law of gravity reveals something about a universe which is constant and eternal. What is it about the universe that is constant, eternal and fundamental? Well, sounds alot like God to me.
Jim Holman, what could God do to convince you He is real?
What would God have to do to convince you he is real? What would be sufficient evidence in your mind?
Also remember that your respect for God must be founded on free will so you must include an experience that respects your free will to think and decide for yourself.
What if He appeared to you in the form of a human?
What if the human lived the same life all other humans did?
What if that human talked to us in plain terms and explained His desire for a close relationship with his Creatures?
Would that be enough? If not, what would be?
Jim, ignore Note 53, it is missing a paragraph, I will repost
Tom C in post #51 says:
Tom, parsing or defining these terms is not really necessary IMO. I perfer to know the following:
1. Do you accept creation ex-nilho or not?
2. Do you accept a loving Creator God who inter-pentrates His creation or not?
3. Do you accept that man is fallen or not?
4. If you accept the falleness of man, does our falleness affect the rest of the created world?
In general, however, the five items you mention all involve the idea that life changes from a state of lesser complexity to a state of higher complexity with each more complex form coming from the less complex form. The agency of the change differs whether one claims to be non-theistic or theistic in belief. Non-theists require a long time line (it keeps expanding to fit the current theory).
All of the arguments I have seen by evolutionists (Dean most recently) start with the idea of species adapatation and then do a jump-shift into species change–two ideas that are neither logically nor factually related. {See Missourian’s posts for further details on some of the logical fallacies inherent in the evolotionists approach.}
I really don’t care what non-theistists do or believe until it impacts me (I’m selfish that way),** but when someone who claims to be Orthodox makes statements that are at odds with the teaching of the Church as I understand it, I’m not going to let it pass.
So I’ll ask Dean, how his ideas square with the teaching of the Church given the brief responses I gave him? Since Dean’s pattern is to lob a bomb and run away I don’t expect an answer. I hope I’m wrong.
Jim, since I know your answers to my questions I really don’t need to know any more and do not care to keep going over the same ground with you.
Unfortunately, the elitism, mysogyny and racism inherent in evolutionary ideas effects all of us adversely.
#57 Michael
I can answer “Yes” to each of your questions. I believe in creation ex-nilhio, I believe in a loving creator who is immanent in creation (but not too immanent), I believe in the Fall, and I believe that the Fall affects all of creation.
I also do not believe that darwinism is correct, so obviously theistic darwinism is not correct.
However, like it or not, evolution, which simply means that life on earth has changed over time, is pretty much a fact that must be acknowledged. The question, then, is whether God could have created life gradually over time, or whether it had to happen at one instant. I think that creation could have happened gradually over time, so I guess that I am a theistic evolutionist.
So, do you think that my position is incompatible with answering yes to your questions? How does answering yes require that creation had to have occurred at one instant?
Missourian writes: “This raises another point, debating with you is like writing on water. The same point is explained over and over and over again. You don’t really respond with a counter-argument you just adopt the now, very tiresome pose of “I’m just asking questions.” Questions which the writer answered. After the answers are supplied, it is appropriate for you to address the answers, which you rarely do.”
In my experience here, when it comes to anything related to some theological idea, I have a difficult time getting a straight answer. For example, after Michael chewed on Dean because of his ideas on theist evolution, I asked Michael what his timelines of events was. He replied “Don’t have one, don’t need one. It is what it is.”
How exactly am I supposed to “address” an answer like that. It’s not an answer; it’s an evasion of an answer.
The home team here are really good at separating the wheat from the chaff, identifying and labeling the materialists, secularists, non-Orthodox, etc. When doing that they are really on their game. But when have to shift modes, from critic to defender, and stake out a very specific position and defend it . . . the attitude is often “don’t have one, don’t need one.”
In my experience here, when it comes to anything related to some theological idea, I have a difficult time getting a straight answer. For example, after Michael chewed on Dean because of his ideas on theist evolution, I asked Michael what his timelines of events was. He replied “Don’t have one, don’t need one. It is what it is.”
That’s because, as usual, you are asking within your frame of reference – materialism. Since you can’t think outside the box, all your questions only make sense within your frame of reference. You get straight answers (over and over and over again). You just don’t like the answers. Which begs the question, what are you doing here at OrthdoxyToday? Trying to save us backward Christians no doubt…:)
Besides, where you not supposed to be taking leave of us? What happened? Can’t find another Christian blog to harass??
Tom says:
However, like it or not, evolution, which simply means that life on earth has changed over time, is pretty much a fact that must be acknowledged. The question, then, is whether God could have created life gradually over time, or whether it had to happen at one instant. I think that creation could have happened gradually over time, so I guess that I am a theistic evolutionist.
Well, even here the content and meaning of “evolution” is problematic. As far as time, you ought to read Fr. Seraphim’s “God, Creation, and Early Man”. If one is going to take the fall seriously, that is that it really happened, then you can not get too caught up in a linear time frame of thinking where the physics/metaphysics is “eternal” or at least “from beginning to end of time”. The fall means that the whole cosmos fell, or changed. That means one can not project from the fall, what happened before the fall, which is when life (and everything else) was created ex nihilo. Interestingly, Fr. Seraphim shows where many Eastern Saints disagree with men like Thomas Aquinas, who uncritically project back conditions in the fall (this present age) to pre-fall man, animals, plants, etc.
Another central problem with “evolution” or, “life changing through time” is it does not take the category of “Man” seriously. Man ends up bleeding into “mankind”, and the individual (heart/body/soul/spirit unity) ends up being categorically “linked’ in a hard way to what is essentially a platonic idealism of “mankind”. Interestingly, this idea was first thought about and put forward in western theology, going way back at least to Aquinas and his followers. You can’t get a “Great Chain of Being” without bleeding the particular into the “one” in a platonic sort of way.
The basis of “evolution”, even in the weak sense that you think of it here is really the atomic physics/metaphysics of Epicurus. Once you realize that Christian metaphysics and physics flow from a different source (the personal – the Holy Trinity) then the “fact” of “time” and “change” do not look so compelling after all. You have to first assume atomistic materialism…
Tom, I can’t write well enough to give you a complete answer to #57, but I’ll give you a few indications. I think you’re intelligent enough to pick them up and run with them. First of all, evolution does not mean simply that life has changed, but that the more complex life forms come from less complex life. The more complex life forms in turn begat even more complex life.
RE: A Creation and Incarntional approach
1. Adaptation, change, and relationships in and between various forms of life in no way imply the transmogrification from species to species postulated by evolution.
2. Time is mutable.
3. Time as we know it is a measure of the rate of decay and is linear.
4. Prior to the fall, time, if it existed at all, did not measure decay because there was no decay.
5. Physical matter existed without decay prior to the fall therefore it was a different substance than it is now.
6. The Bible describes God’s Word creating specific creatures and beings not creating in general. (There is much patristic commentary here, especially St. Maximus the Confessor). (See also Fr.Hans, Post #38)
7. When God Incarnated, it is reasonable to assume that the physical reality of the created order began to change back in the direction of what it was like before the fall.
8. Creation is not linear. (See Life after Death by Fr. Thomas Hopko)
Some questions to ponder re: evoloution:
A. Somehow the energy from the sun in our own solar system is sufficient to overcome entropy in evolution, but insufficient to significantly influence global warming (HUH?)
B. Molecular biology and information theory vitiate against any type of species change (the more complex coming from the less complex).
C. Among the many constants assumed by evolutionists is time yet the Theory of Relativity (which unlike evolution is subject to verification) shows that time is not constant.
D. A corollary of time being constant is that the rate of decay over vast amounts of time is both mesurable and constant. There are many reasons to suspect that such is not the case, but no way to prove it either way.
E. Death is an engine of progress (Fr. Hans post #40)
*******************************************
Your questions: So, do you think that my position is incompatible with answering yes to your questions? I do believe that your answering yes to my questions is incompatible with evolution.
How does answering yes require that creation had to have occurred at one instant?
“Instant” is a measure of time and has no meaning prior to the fall. Look more closely at my question #2. If God dwells in His Creation and His Creation in Him, what evolves? Is it not a matter of overcoming sin and death? Did not the very same Word that brought us into existence and still reverberates througout His creation, become one of us and die, resurrect and ascend to re-open paradise for us?
Tom, I can’t write well enough to give you a complete answer but I’ll give you a few indications. I think you’re intelligent enough to pick them up and run with them. First of all, evolution does not mean simply that life has changed, but that the more complex life forms come from less complex life. The more complex life forms in turn begat even more complex life.
RE: A Creation and Incarntional approach
1. Adaptation, change, and relationships in and between various forms of life in no way imply the transmogrification from species to species postulated by evolution.
2. Time is mutable.
3. Time as we know it is a measure of the rate of decay and is linear.
4. Prior to the fall, time, if it existed at all, did not measure decay because there was no decay.
5. Physical matter existed without decay prior to the fall therefore it was a different substance than it is now.
6. The Bible describes God’s Word creating specific creatures and beings not creating in general. (There is much patristic commentary here, especially St. Maximus the Confessor). (See also Fr.Hans, Post #38)
7. When God Incarnated, it is reasonable to assume that the physical reality of the created order began to change back in the direction of what it was like before the fall.
8. Creation is not linear. (See Life after Death by Fr. Thomas Hopko)
Some questions to ponder re: evoloution:
A. Somehow the energy from the sun in our own solar system is sufficient to overcome entropy in evolution, but insufficient to significantly influence global warming (HUH?)
B. Molecular biology and information theory vitiate against any type of species change (the more complex coming from the less complex).
C. Among the many constants assumed by evolutionists is time yet the Theory of Relativity (which unlike evolution is subject to verification) shows that time is not constant.
D. A corollary of time being constant is that the rate of decay over vast amounts of time is both mesurable and constant. There are many reasons to suspect that such is not the case, but no way to prove it either way.
E. Death is an engine of progress (Fr. Hans post #40)
*******************************************
Your questions: So, do you think that my position is incompatible with answering yes to your questions? I do believe that your answering yes to my questions is incompatible with evolution.
How does answering yes require that creation had to have occurred at one instant?
“Instant” is a measure of time and has no meaning prior to the fall. Look more closely at my question #2. If God dwells in His Creation and His Creation in Him, what evolves? Is it not a matter of overcoming sin and death? Did not the very same Word that brought us into existence and still reverberates througout His creation, become one of us and die, resurrect and ascend to re-open paradise for us?
Tom, tried posting a longer, more complicated response to your questions in #57 but it comes down to this:
Change does not imply the less complex giving rise to the more complex.
The Creation of God is specific, not general. (see Fr. Hans #38)
Look more closely at my question #2: If God dwells in His Creation and His Creation dwells in Him, what is there to evolve. Is it not a matter of overcoming sin and death? Did not the Word that brought us into existence and still reverberates throughout His Creation become one of us, died, resurrected, and ascended to re-open Paradise to us?
James, try this link if you want to know more about Orthodoxy. Then poke around and read a few of the other topics and posts.
Christopher writes: “The fall means that the whole cosmos fell, or changed. That means one can not project from the fall, what happened before the fall, which is when life (and everything else) was created ex nihilo.”
Of course the problem is that science does just fine projecting backwards. It’s not like at a certain point the scientific data all of a sudden don’t make any sense. Astronomy, astrophysics, geology, biology, genetics, paleontology, all work very well, all producing testable hypotheses that can be confirmed or refuted by the evidence. If indeed everything changed so much at a certain point, then when is that point? I’m sure scientists would like to know.
Of course you can’t or won’t specify when that point is. Because if you did, someone could actually do some fact-checking and see if your claim was true. And that must be avoided at all costs. Apparently it is the essence of Orthodox belief to claim that such a point exists, but to actually ask when it happened is an attack on Orthodoxy.
This whole thing of “everything was different before the fall” has absolutely no basis in any kind of fact or evidence. It’s all about protecting the theology. I was a fundamentalist for over ten years, and I used to protect the theology too. I feel your pain.
Missourian writes: “You have your own unacknowledged articles of faith. Among those unacknowledged articles of faith is the belief in science as a fountain of uncontestable truth.”
But scientific statements can be contested. Scientists do that all the time. If you want examples of statements that can’t be contested, look at theological statements.
Missourian: “However, just a few weeks ago, you engaged in a long discussion with me, about the contingency of scientific theory. You claimed great insight into the theory of scientific knowledge and took great pride in pointing out its contingency and temporary nature.”
I didn’t have “great insight” or “great pride.” What I did have was an undergraduate education in philosophy, including courses in philosophy of science. I wanted to clear up any misunderstanding about the issue. And yes, scientific knowledge is contingent. That doesn’t mean that it’s worthless or can be casually dismissed with a wave of the hand. The knowledge of the maximum possible volume of a liquid moving through a pipe of a certain dimension is in principle contingent, but when someone builds a nuclear power plant next door, you better hope that the engineers know the formula.
Missourian, look. You know science. You’ve studied more science than I have. When people say that “everything was different before the fall,” just ask when that happened. Ask what evidence they have for that. These are simple, common-sense questions, not “materialism.” And I can tell you right now that you will NEVER get a direct answer. Never. Or in the miraculous event that you do get an answer, investigate for yourself whether the answer is correct. You’re smart, you’ve studied science, so check out the answer.
We depend on scientific knowledge in all sorts of life and death situations. Scientific knowledge is not the kind of thing that can be switched on and off like a floor lamp. “Oh, look here comes theology, so let’s turn off science.” Doesn’t work that way, though many wish it were so.
Christopher: “Besides, were you not supposed to be taking leave of us? What happened? Can’t find another Christian blog to harass??”
Oh, I’m cutting back. The Schiavo thread appears to be just about over. I’m not posting anything on the social or political threads. I just dropped in here to try to bring a touch of reality to the discussion. I’ll stop by once in a while, but for the most part you will be able to operate without any reality check from me.
When did time begin? When will it end.
The Alpha and Omega
All centered on the Cross
Note 67. Jim writes:
You get two choices in life: 1) time is linear, or 2) time is circular.
The first was given to the world through the Jews, Genesis in particular (this is the genius of Genesis), and makes progress possible. The second was the view of the entire known world which, in historical terms was supplanted by the preaching of the Gospel by Paul in Greece.
Thus, the question you pose is one into which science cannot reach, because it largely deals with religion/philosphy. Also, your experience as a fundamentalist has no bearing on it either, which is to say it cannot be answered by psychology either.
Science cannot extend beyond the ‘boundaries’ as such, which is to say it cannot extend beyond the beginning (or project beyond the end) whether one believes time is linear or circular. Science has to defer to theology here; it has no other choice. If scientists choose to extend themselves beyond these boundaries, then we see the rise of the cult of the scientist (think Carl Sagan for example), but not necessarily the extension of science.
What then is the point of the distinction between linear and circular time? The discipline of science can only arise in a linear framework, because linear time posits the idea of progress (and in its secular variant the idea of self-generating evolution). Circular time cannot do this. That is why the scientific method arose in a Christian milleau.
You are basically saying that science is silent about questions of theodicy. Of course it is.
Fr. Hans writes: “You are basically saying that science is silent about questions of theodicy. Of course it is.”
There are all sorts of questions and issues into which science cannot reach, and in those cases it would make no sense at all to look for a scientific understanding. To claim that only scientific knowledge is valid is not science, but is what the scholar Huston Smith calls “scientism.” It is a false view of both science and knowledge that has nothing to do with science itself.
Likewise, there are all sorts of questions and issues that are perfectly within the domain of science, and in those areas we look to science for answers.
What I object to is when science is rejected even in the areas in which a scientific understanding is completely valid and necessary. Science will never have anything to say about the Trinity. It has a great deal to say about geological and astronomical timelines, and various biological developments along those timelines.
The idea that “everything was different before the fall so we have no idea what happened” is simply an attempt to render science irrelevant in areas in which it is completely relevant, under the smokescreen of attacking “modernism” and “materialism.” Such a move has one main effect: it makes Christianity look silly. It is a marvelous tool for driving people away from Christianity. Oh, you’ll always find people who will believe anything, but most of the people recognize a scam when they see it.
Michael and Christopher –
I actually agree with much of what you have written, but I do think you are evading some basic questions that are of importance here. Let me try a few:
1) Whether you think time began after creation, or after the Fall, it did begin at some point. After it began, is it subject to scientific investigation? To put it very baldly, is dating rocks possible?
2) When we read that Man was created from the dust, do you envision an event where a cloud of dust was formed into a human, or is it a metaphorical statement that humans are constituted of elements from nature.
3) Did the Fall occur when Adam ate the apple, or is that, again, a poetical way of describing a reality of current human exisitence?
BTW, it is not true that “evolution” which is what most people call darwinism, is based on self-organization of matter. Self-organization is really an alternative to darwinism that has has gained traction as darwinism has become less and less plausible. If God is immanent in creation, why is self-organization not possible? It strikes me as consistent with Orthodox theology that God could create from within creation.
Tom, a brief and inadequate reply to your questions:
I’m not evading anything it is just that the questions Jim poses from within his framework don’t have much relevance to the Orthodox framework. Since he has repeatedly said that he does not want to enter into the Orthodox mind, I just don’t see much point in going over the same ground with him.
The key difference between evolution, even the theistic variety, and traditional Christianity is evolution looks from the bottom up and is completely impersonal. Traditional Christianity looks from the top down and is throughly personal.
Quick stab at your questions:
1. Is dating rocks possible—only if you intend to marry, but doesn’t that question belong on another thread?
Seriously: sure. Just be careful that you don’t allow the evolutionists to phrase the debate in the false dichotomy science vs. religion. It is not about science at all, it is about defending the philosophy of philosphical naturalism as all that is necessary to make sense of the universe. Again the methods, the results and the use of the results will be vastly different depending upon which faith assumptions are used.
2. The picture of the creation of man (wholly inadequate and stickly my own personal one) is a master potter. I don’t know if you have every done any pottery, forming the clay with your hands into the shape you want, coloring it with glaze, then firing it. The master potter knows exactly what elements make up the clay (many different types), what plasticity and firing qualities are necessary to achieve what he has in mind. He blends the clay, prepares it by adding just the right amount of water and kneads it to drive out air bubbles that would cause it to explode during firing. Then he forms it in the shape desired either using just his hands or on a wheel. After drying, the vessel is glazed (most glazes are natural and elemental). One of my favorite is salt (you are the salt of the earth). {The salt is introduce during the firing process and melts into the clay producing a variety of wonderful warm earth colors that are full of texture} Then of course pot is fired in the kiln so that it can become permanent and useable. Making the pottery involves all of you and you invest the clay with your own personality from start to finish. Each and every “pot” is unique even when they are part of a set and a certain amount of uniformity is desired. I’ve always associated Jesus making clay with His spittle and annoiting the blind man with the act of creation too.
3. The fall actually occurred. The fruit is symbolic of the decision to choose our own will and knowledge over communion with God. It is evident from Scriptures that the consequences of the split were not instantaneous. Essentially, they continued until the Incarnation reversed them. Now we have the choice to follow the path back to communion or continue on our own way. The whole “science of evolution” was created and largely maintained by those who wanted a system that would allow them to go their own way, ignoring God. Theistic evolution buy into the same rebellion.
Self-organinzation of matter is an essential element in any materialistic explanation of the natural world. What else is natural selection?
Remember two parts of the traditional Christian understanding about us: we are the microcosm and the steward of creation. God is united with His creation in and through us. The Christian understanding therefore avoids pantheism and is quiet specific and personal.
Further reading:
On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius
The Ancestral Sin by John Romanides
Genesis, Creation and Early Man, by Fr. Seraphim Rose, ed. by Hieromonk Damascene Christian.
Of course there is a veritible plethora of books and articles addressing the topic from all perspectives, but I like these three.
Tom, here is my take – perhaps Michael will correct my mistakes:
1) Yes, dating of rocks is possible, post fall, and possibly only with in an “age” post fall (in other words, Time itself post fall is divided up by “ages” – I may be reading more into the Fathers here than is warranted). But what does it mean to date a rock pre fall? You can’t, as everything has changed since the fall. This is important because everything was created pre-fall (man included), not post fall.
2) It is NOT a metaphorical statement that “humans are constituted of elements from nature.”, which I take to mean under the physics/metaphysics of the fall, or even perhaps an Epicurean view of atomistic creation.
3) Yes, the Fall occurred when Adam ate of the apple. What does that mean, physically, post fall (how do we project ourselves and our minds into the pre fall spiritual reality, so we can understand what it means to “eat” etc. pre fall)? The Saints instruct us it is not something our senses and our minds can really grasp with the mind, only the heart. This makes sense, because the heart is a larger ‘concept’ or ‘thing’ than the rational mind which organizes sense data…
If indeed everything changed so much at a certain point, then when is that point?
It’s not a “point”, because it is out of Time. Time “changed”, or rather fell. The “point” is not a physical point, it is a “transcendent” point, based on personal events (between creature and God) that are spiritual, moral, not “physical” (or rather the physical flow from these higher things). Science, which is a post fall physical method, can not penetrate this.
This whole thing of “everything was different before the fall” has absolutely no basis in any kind of fact or evidence. It’s all about protecting the theology. I was a fundamentalist for over ten years, and I used to protect the theology too.
Your still a fundamentalist, just of a different kind. You changed your “faith” from something that, on the surface at least, is Christian, to materialism. No need to “protect” anything, in that it is reasoned to, based on real evidence (that includes something other than pure physical sense data – which is nonetheless as real, even more real – like the “law written on the heart”). I accept and acknowledge my faith, you don’t.
just ask when that happened. Ask what evidence they have for that. These are simple, common-sense questions
Yes, and ones that are not answered with materialism. Your unexamined faith is too shallow for the reality that is this fallen world. What “happened” is the fallen world, and the evidence for it is all around you, but you have to listen to voices other than materialistic philosophy. Most of mankind throughout history was and is capable of doing this. It is “modern” man who seems to have real trouble examining his own pretenses. This is because he is, above all, introverted and idealistic – while at the same time claiming to be “open to the evidence”!!
And I can tell you right now that you will NEVER get a direct answer. Never.
Try the Church of Christ, prayer, calm moral reasoning, shoot, almost any philosophy known in the history of the world. They are all very direct answers. Even your own faith (i.e. materialism) has it’s answer – in denies the reality of the answer – which is a sort of answer in itself, just not one that fills the God sized hole in each man’s heart.
I just dropped in here to try to bring a touch of reality to the discussion.
Your a good, hard working fundamentalist (for materialism 🙂
The idea that “everything was different before the fall so we have no idea what happened”
But we DO know what happened, it’s called “Revelation”, both natural and supernatural.
it makes Christianity look silly. It is a marvelous tool for driving people away from Christianity.
Not at all, because it is the Truth (of the Christ, the Saints, and His Church). It only “looks silly” to those who cling to an opposing philosophy. The belief that “science”, by which in this case you really mean materialism, is the “neutral ground” which all philosophy must bow to (and the space in which conflicting “realities” is adjudicated) is the modernist faith. Shoot, even post-modernists don’t buy that anymore. It really is discredited, most importantly by the personal experience of looking at the Divine Revelation in your own heart…
If God is immanent in creation, why is self-organization not possible? It strikes me as consistent with Orthodox theology that God could create from within creation.
Well, I have not heard of a philosophy along this line that has not quickly collapsed back into neo-Platonism, and/or a variety of pantheism. I think it does not take into account ex nihilo, which really separates God from his creation…
I said above:
This is important because everything was created pre-fall (man included), not post fall.
Because man’s physical condition, post fall, which is many things but certainly one of suffering, and because the fall was a personal, moral “event”, one having to do with a personal relationship between man and God, this means that the suffering of this world can not be looked at primarily in physical terms. Sufferings meaning is not to be looked for in physical conditions and circumstances. Salvation from suffering is not in physical “progress”, and it’s limitations and conditions can not be defined primarily in physical terms. Death, suffering, evil, it’s all an aspect of something higher than, more than, the physical – the personal…
Fr. Hans,
Michael,
Great points. There are a couple of other powerful arguments in support of the Christian view of life.
First, the discovery by science that our cells were designed to theoretically repair and replace themselves in perpetuity. This support the Christian view that the human body was designed immortal. Medicine indicates that for some “mysterious” reason (otherwise called “sin” by Christianity, sin = the human will separating itself from God’s will) after a set number of perfect copies our cells and DNA begin to degenerate and some cells no longer replicated themselves. This automatic trigger cannot be explained by scientists or the macro-evolutionists.
Second, humanity’s abhorrence of death and loathing for the gradual degeneration of our bodies, points to an unnatural source for death. If we’re to believe the macro-evolutionist and Hindu myth of “constant progress” and the “normal” cycles of life and death, then how is it possible for humans to show such revulsion and feel such hatred for a natural process? If indeed evolution created our brains, bodies, and reason, why did our minds adopt a completely alien and unnatural viewpoint on death? Here again, Christianity correctly answers that question. Man was created for everlasting life in full communion with God and the nature (plants and animals) He created for us. Only when we disobeyed God and cut off our relationship (lifeline to life) with the author of all life, that our created life lost its footing and death resulted. Our souls and bodies however still maintain a memory of what it means to be truly “human” and live in full communion with God. As such, we correctly view death and biological degeneration as a tragedy and an alien event in the history of mankind.
Mr. Bauman,
Thank you so much for your clear explanation of the truth of creation. My heart was fainting as I read heathen ravings here. Clouds they are without water, indeed. Thank you for standing against them, and if you don’t mind I’d like to ask some questions. They are difficult for me to understand, so please bear with me. First, I’d like to read the book by Fr. Seraphim Rose. I’m not to good on the internet, but it looks like only the first few chapters are available. Is that so?
Sincerely,
Henry
The approximate date of the Fall revealed.
Christopher writes: “It’s not a “point”, because it is out of Time. Time “changed”, or rather fell. The “point” is not a physical point, it is a “transcendent” point, based on personal events (between creature and God) that are spiritual, moral, not “physical” (or rather the physical flow from these higher things). Science, which is a post fall physical method, can not penetrate this.”
Ok, even given that the Fall is a timeless event, it should be very easy to calculate when that occurred. Genesis 5:3 says “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.” Genesis 5:4 says “And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters.” Ok, so post-fall Adam lived 800 years. Cain and Abel were born before Seth, but we don’t know how old Adam was.
Pre-fall, we don’t know anything about how “long” Adam lived. So we really don’t know what “130 years” even means, how much of that was pre-fall or post-fall. So Seth is the starting point. Seth is born post-fall, during the era when time, matter, and the laws of nature are presumably what they are today. Now between Seth and today is around 6,000 years. The genealogy of the Bible is very clear about that. Therefore, the amount of time between now and the fall has to be around 6,000 years.
So time, matter, and the laws of nature must have changed around 6,000 years ago, right?
Henry, unfortunately, you are correct. Other chapters may be added, but no telling when. It looks as if the 1st edition is no longer available. A 2nd edition is in the works.
Ah, Jim, you remind me of Genesis 3:1
From a 1997 essay by Richard Lewontin, a leading genetist and evolutionist:
(quoted in Genesis, Creation and Early Man, p60-61)
And so Jim, damaged and disillusioned by a distorted version of Chrisitanity, turns to the enemy of Christianity and “refuses to allow a Divine Foot in the door”.
Jim, one additional comment on Richard Lewontin: Such a move has one main effect: it makes science look silly. It is a marvelous tool for driving people away from science. Oh, you’ll always find people who will believe anything, but most of the people recognize a scam when they see it.
Michael writes: “Ah, Jim, you remind me of Genesis 3:1.”
Yes, I can see that. Holman the serpent, urging the residents of the Orthodox garden of Eden to partake of the apple of common sense. You know I’ve been wondering why I’m crawling on my belly all the time now. I’m really wearing out a lot of shirts, and my drycleaning bill is huge.
Michael: “And so Jim, damaged and disillusioned by a distorted version of Christianity, turns to the enemy of Christianity and “refuses to allow a Divine Foot in the door”.”
I don’t have a problem with the “divine foot,” but my experience with fundamentalism makes me very wary of assuming that every foot in the door claiming to be divine is in fact divine. In other words, just because someone can tell a pleasant and charming story with the word “God” in it doesn’t mean that the story is true. Just because someone has an explanation with the word “God” in it doesn’t mean that everyone suddenly has an obligation to suspend rational thought.
But let’s talk about the “fall” argument — not so much the argument itself, but how it works. After the fall, everything was “different.” How is the post-fall universe different from the pre-fall universe? No one knows. The only thing we do know is that there is nothing in the post-fall world that can be used to infer anything at all about the pre-fall world. Thus our normal perceptions and thoughts tell us absolutely nothing about the origins of the universe or the development of life on earth.
At this point I would like to note that I am in fact the King of England. I was crowned king of England, but it was a timeless event. I can’t tell you when or how it happened, but it happened. After my crowning, everything in history changed, so that you can’t look at post-crowning history and presume that it bears any relationship to pre-crowning history. Thus there simply is no evidence that I am not king of England. I will also note that expensive gifts appropriate to my royal status are appropriate, and if anyone would like to supply me with such gifts, I’ll send you my street address.
In addition, I am in fact the only thing that exists in the universe. All of you are merely creations of my own mind, and though you all think you have real existence, consciousness, etc., you actually don’t. Those are also creations of my mind. I created you all because I like the idea of having theological discussions with people who don’t actually exist.
All three of these arguments — pre- and post-fall, my kingship, and my solo existence — are all skeptical arguments, all examples of philosophical skepticism.
Skepticism is very clever, in that it posits certain conditions that ensure that our normal perceptions can’t be trusted. The interesting thing is that the skeptic always wins. The skeptical position can never be disproven. You can’t prove that I’m not the king of England. You can’t prove that you all are not creations of my mind. And I certainly can’t prove that the world today has not been totally transformed by the fall to the point that nothing can be known about the history of the universe.
So it is very interesting to me that a defense of Orthodox theology relies on what is basically a clever philosophical trick. But anyone willing to take a bite from the apple of common sense will see that the trick is too clever, too pat.
It turns out that the only thing that is known is that there is nothing in the post-fall world that can be used to criticize Orthodox beliefs about origins. This isn’t because that’s how things really are, but because of the way the skeptical argument is set up — how it ensures that we cannot use any evidence to infer anything about “what really happened” with respect to origins. It’s a great trick, but just a trick. Orthodox theology rescued by philosophical skepticism. You learn something new every day.
There you go again! Same argument the serpent used. God is not telling you the truth extened to He’s not really there, He’s just a figment of your imagination.
We are created by a loving God out of nothing or we were not.
The Fall is real or it is not.
Death came into the phenomenal world by the Fall or it did not.
There is a transcendent and eternal reality or there is not.
I could go on, but you always come out on the not side of the equation. Unlike the serpent, you really seem to believe it. I am on the other side of the equation. I am not a skeptic. I accept the Traditional Christian paradigm, you do not. I put my faith in the transcendent reality of a Triune God, you put your faith in what you can see, touch, feel and what “makes sense” to your own mind. Christianity doesn’t “make sense” as St. Paul pointed out.
If you want to really learn something, learn this: The Orthodox Church is not the fundamentalism you experienced, it never has been, it never will be. We are radically different. It seems to me you have taken the fundamentalist mindset, stripped “God references” out and still use it philosophically. Certainly you view Christianity through the template of your own unfortunate experience. What you lived in is not Christianity. You describe it pretty well–using the name of God to justify one’s own passions. Try something genuine, where union with Christ is possible where you can enter into liturgical time and the resurrection rather than being ruled by decay.
Ever read, “The Sound and the Fury” by Faulkner? Benji lived in disordered time and couldn’t function, Quentin was obsessed by time and committed suicide, Jason had reduced himself to two dimensions and lived solely in linear time–ruled by it which brought about the destruction of what he wanted, Dilsey lived free in the world by existing in liturgical time. Ever since I read the book over 30 years ago I have longed for the freedom Dilsey had. Every once in a while I touch it in the Church, but only there. I am quite happy with my timeline that I expressed earlier when you insisted that I give you one: The Alpha, the Cross, The Omega. It can also be expressed as Creation, Fall, Incarnation (includes death, resurrection, ascension), The Return.
I’m sorry if this is unacceptable to you, but it is not a trick.
So it is very interesting to me that a defense of Orthodox theology relies on what is basically a clever philosophical trick….How is the post-fall universe different from the pre-fall universe? No one knows.
Not true. You keep making the same argument, as you are apt to do. It is not that physics/metaphysics is unknowable pre-fall, it’s just not knowable through materialism. As a good fundamentalist, I suspect you will keep pounding out the fundamentals of materialism for the next 50 posts or so…: )
Perhaps the question that needs to be answered by both sides is whether faith is a valid way of acquiring knowledge or being able to declare certainty about things (that is, unless the question itself isn’t nonsensical to start with).
I do know that faith (in the generic sense) is a necessary part of human existence. If one actually began to question the possibilities of what could happen to oneself or one’s loved ones in the course of any day, it could literally drive one to insanity (and this seems to be what happens in various types of neuroses, phobias and the like). We get in our cars every day, not really having any proof that we won’t be killed on our way to work or that a child won’t be diagnosed with cancer the next, but generally having a “faith” that these events won’t pass (of course, that faith is sometimes proven incorrect). (Of course, the faith of the religious is a bit different — that is, even if these events do occur, there’s a “reason” for it, an unknown good to be gained that may not be known to us at the time.)
It’s a bit why I’m reluctant to pull this rug out from under the wrong people … yes, they may be self-righteous and intolerable as believers, but who knows what they’d be like without that faith?
So what is “faith”? Does it tell us anything objectively true about the objects of that faith? I don’t think we can say “It is true because I believe it to be true” (although some will try to suggest this), yet the presence of faith does seem to often provide some indication of something tangible there in the first place.
Note 88, what if you don’t “believe” but “know”
I am sure I will be showered with withering critiques for this one, but, my honest position is that I don’t believe there is a God, I know there is a God.
God can, and does sometimes, clearly manifest himself to individuals. An unmerited gift. Evidence has a way of piling up. Life experience, reading, study and time goes on, it mounts. Christianity is the best explanation of human nature, the sources of human happiness and unhappiness, and the nature of humankind.
The problem I run into so often, is that atheists start with the premise that the existence of God is implausible and contrary to logic and common sense. It isn’t. They describe religion as a matter of “faith” or “belief in the unproven or that which is beyond proof.” Sometimes it is a matter of knowledge.
After I have determined that so very many things in the Bible hold true across time, I am willing to accept teachings from the same source. Just as if you had a friend who had proven to be reliable time after time after time. After a while you give credence to something that that friend says because he has proven himself reliable so many times.
This, of course, means that I have no escape from judgment because I have no excuse. I was raised right and I know right and that is truly frightening.
O.K. let the critiques begin.
Knowledge comes from faith, faith from knowledge. The more one knows, the stronger one’s faith becomes.
Look at it this way, how does one explain and transmit a multi-dimensional, supra-rational reality in a two dimensional medium. Everything gets squished, distorted and stripped from what it really is. It is like a musical note with no overtones or no timbre. Like robots doing dance moves. Technically correct, but no life.
Unfortunately, the same medium is quiet well suited to convey linear, rationalistic, abstract thought.
“Truth is not just an abstract idea, sought and known with the mind, but something personal—even a Person—sought and loved with the heart, Jesus Christ”
Fr. Seraphim Rose
Note 88, don’t claim to know everything or understand everything
I don’t claim to know everything, I don’t claim to understand everything. I do know that I know what I need to know to know that what the Church teaches is true.
Given that there are so many areas that I see practical confirmation of the truth of the Church’s teachings I don’t get very agitated about the fact that I don’t follow, as an example, the fine points of the filioque controversy between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics (although I respect it is a very important matter). I won’t live long enough to understand all of these deep things and I am not sure that I need to in order to be kind to my neighbor.
Look at the New Testament Christ taught in terms that were simple enough for anyone to understand. At the same time everything he taught has unmeasured and profound depth so that it never ceases to instruct no matter how many times you have read a particular passage.
Many times JamesK seems to throw out dozens and dozens of questions as if to assert that they all must be answered to the satisfaction of his sense of logic or the possibility of God’s existence must be rejected.
We will never have all the answers. We still have to go forward with our lives. We still have to make choices. Not to decide is to decide whether we acknowledge it or not.
Scientists readily admit that there are oceans of unanswered questions. Medical scientists keep finding more and more therapeutic uses for aspirin but they still don’t fully understand how it works in the body. No one dismisses science because it cannot explain everything to the satisfaction of the average person on the street. The theory of relativity does not make “common sense.” The theory of relatively deeply offends common sense, but, it is as true as any scientific theory can be proven to be true given the world we live in.
Tired going to bed.
Note 90, if we keep throwing up complex intellectual objections we don’t have to change our ways
Let’s keep the debate going, then, at the end of our lives we can say that we would have become believers but we just couldn’t get all of our questions satisfactorily answered. God or His representatives on Earth needed to descend to our level and explain the Universe and all human history to us in a manner that we personally found satisfactory, or, we just couldn’t believe in Him. Since we just couldn’t believe in Him we didn’t have to follow his commandments.
We don’t have to give up: smoking, lying, cheating, accumulating useless wealth to satisfy our ego, one-upping our neighbor, drinking excessively,
holding a delicious grudge, engaging in passive aggressive warfare at work,
[list continues ad infinitum]
Isn’t there a passage in the Old Testament which states ” all that is required of you is to “actly justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.”
We know all we need to know.
My take on the the various theories of origins usually bandied about is “none of the above”.
Whether they realize it or not, scientists have modelled the various theories of origins – whether universe, earth, or life – on the account in Genesis. What physically happened back in the mists of time is not knowable by humans, yet the scientific narrative has been forced into a step-by-step, onward-and-upward model. It is truly amazing how confidently scientists believe they know what happened in the first 20 milliseconds of the big bang based on the spacing of spectral lines. A little agnosticism about these things is good sometimes.
Michael and Christopher, I read the material by Fr. Rose and agree with the thrust of it. However, I think he is also being evasive about details that are important. So, let’s assume that it does not make sense to speculate whether a “day” of creation is 24 hours or 24 million years. I agree. Now, if a geologist measures the decay of radioactive material in some rocks, and finds that they were formed, say, 3 billion years ago, would you not accept this, and base your position on ideas about the Bible, the Fall, etc?
Missourian – nice post in #88. However, I think that we learn to trust the Bible (or the church, maybe) regarding human nature and the spiritual life, not necessarily regarding someone’s speculations about history or science.
Tom writes:
However, I think that we learn to trust the Bible (or the church, maybe) regarding human nature and the spiritual life, not necessarily regarding someone’s speculations about history or science.
Hi Tom
Do I understand? If not please clarify for me. You are saying you believe the Bible and church have trustworthy things to say regarding human nature and the spiritual life. Then you refer to ‘speculations about history or science.’ If I understand, you do not seem to think the Bible (“or the church, maybe”) speaks with authority in these realms? Have I stretched that beyond what you meant?
I wrote earlier,
Tom, here is my concern. God spoke by the prophets, who Forth-told words of God, and also Fore-told (things of the future.) Things which indeed have come to pass concerning the Saviour of the world. How did they Foretell — unless they were given divine words? Gifted unto, Given unto — by God himself.
Moses, the writer of the first five books of the Bible, was *not present* as an eye-witness observer of the creation week and beyond. How did he know what to write? Surely – in the manner future history was given. By Gift.
Otherwise you can write Genesis off as …what were your words:
“speculations about history or science.” So, I would like to ask an obvious question then, are Moses’ words divine? Arranged not one atom less exquisitely as the molecules of a white moth, 🙂 or something like that? I’m trying to say, ‘perfectly.’ Accurate.
Michael writes: “I am on the other side of the equation. I am not a skeptic. I accept the Traditional Christian paradigm, you do not. I put my faith in the
transcendent reality of a Triune God, you put your faith in what you can see, touch, feel and what “makes sense” to your own mind. Christianity doesn’t “make sense” as St. Paul pointed out.”
Michael, I don’t have a problem with anyone’s religious faith per se. As I have said before, not everything is explicable in scientific terms; in fact, the things most important in human experience generally are not.
I do have a problem when someone’s religious belief contradicts established scientific facts about the universe. If someone believes that humankind is at the very center of God’s concern, I have no problem with that. If, based on that belief, someone insists that the earth must be at the very center of the universe, and that the sun must revolve around the earth, I have a problem with that.
Continuing, Tom C.
Concerning your call for a clear definition of terms, I don’t know whether to apologize or not, in that I did not offer mine. On the one hand, I barely know my times-tables, and do not think I should say very much about science itself; but on the other hand, I am grieved that heads of medical schools in the Orthodox church are asserting Evolution. That men of “popularity” shall I say, such as Alexandre Kalomiros did, up until his death,
as well. That St Vladimir’s Seminary grants an honorary doctorate to an Evolutionist (name is written in Rose’s book which I’ve forgotten.)
Here, Tom, I would like to honor your request for a definition. Because I have made reference to these false teachers. The definition shows why.
Evolutionary theory: Microbes-to-man evolution.
Evolutionary fact: mutations, plus natural selection and speciation, everyone acknowledges as factual, undisputed.
These false teachers are Christians who once gave ear to, that which contradicts the Face of the Genesis account. And they listened some more. Then they teach it “for fact.” Or, perhaps as Francis Collins, the Evolutionary Theory was adhered to first, and then one comes to the Bible with the education-baggage, aiw.
Microbes-to-man requires an information *increase* in the genome. This is opposed by the Genesis account. Everything was created in the Creation week, after which God rested and Stopped creating. FINI. The Lord said, “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.” Mark 10:6. Here could be inserted an understanding of the doctrine of Providence, which is continuous creation, God continuing to act, shape, mold, display his glory in history. But how many times in the Genesis account is it repeated, ‘after their kind.’ That is creation.
Providence is God Enabling us to reproduce, to read, to think, to write. Jesus’ statement, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” This is completely different and separate from the Sudden work God did the Creation Week — after which He Rested. All done! As for mutations, etc, that only ever results in a *loss* of information or at best a duplication of existing information. (due to corruption which set in at the fall.) Amazingly, however, much is stable. The sun comes up always. I do not know that I agree with Christopher that time, itself, 24-hour days, changed after the fall. And an aside to Michael, if I may: I find the assertion ‘don’t need a timeline’ to be trite. God has set forth, belabored iyw, geneologies, and they are not for nothing.
Jeremiah 33:20
More of this in Psalm 89,
“His seed shall endure forever,
And his throne as the sun before Me;
It shall be established forever like the moon,
Even like the faithful witness in the sky.” Selah
I am wondering — here is an at-a-glance comparison chart of Theistic Evolution vs. Bible statements. By God’s Providence then, what do you see? Have you had opportunity to consider these discrepancies?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ42.html#wp1855658
Tom:
Here’s my problem a lot of these scientific “facts” are not discovered so much as they are created. Look at what Lewonton said: he and his colleagues have a priori assumptions that are at odds with Christianity even the part of the Bible you say you trust. They have to reach a materialist explanation. They are not agnostics when it comes to such things; they are true believers.
It’s like dong historical research starting, John Kennedy’s assassination for example. If one starts with the assumption that he was killed as part of a conspiracy, all of the “facts” take on a different meaning that if the opposite assumption is held.
The dating method is an example. For it to be as correct as many claim, huge assumptions across vast amounts of time have to be made. If one of those assumptions is off by a little bit, the results will be vastly wrong. Trouble is that the assumptions become so much a part of the accepted scientific approach they are unquestionable—a fundamentalist scientism is the result.
Does anyone question that evolutionary biology that gave birth to the related cosmology was specifically designed to be an alternative to the Christian approach?
When the question comes down to God or not God as it does in questions about origins, I’ll pick God every time. After that there will be discussions about a lot of things but it will be on a ground of reality instead of vain imaginings.
Jim, your post is a perfect example of secularism. To a secularist God is important only to each individual. That thinking is inherent in the fundamentalism that you left. You left, but the manner of thinking is still with you. That may have thought way before which is one of the reasons you were attracted to fundamentalism in the first place. It is profoundly wrong.
See Living a Secular Life and Leaving the Secular Life by Fr. Stephen Freeman. He has the ability to express the faith far better than I do.
Actually, if anyone wants to learn about the faith rather than contend about its application (he doesn’t allow contention by the way), his is a good one.
Missourian writes: “No one dismisses science because it cannot explain everything to the satisfaction of the average person on the street.”
Ironically, many religious people dismiss science, not because of what it doesn’t explain, but because of what it DOES explain.
A general kind of religious faith — a sense of a universal presence, a sense of meaning, etc. — is not problematic. But as religious faith becomes increasingly specific and the beliefs become more and more detailed, that’s where things become problematic. And when religious belief contradicts known facts, that’s when it runs off the rails.
As I see it, religious belief in its detailed form is a fairly simple thing to understand. It involves accepting things as true on the basis of what, in any other context, would be considered to be insufficient evidence. Rather than being based on evidence, the belief is held because of personal experience, or because some revered and respected person held the belief. Since the belief isn’t based on evidence, contrary evidence is typically rejected out of hand.
And the interesting thing is that it works that way across all sorts of different religious traditions — Mormon, Baptist, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Orthodox, or whatever, even though the specific beliefs may be utterly different from each other. There are all sorts of things that can’t be known through “materialism,” including the Mormon’s golden plates of the angel Moroni, the Baptist’s inerrant Bible, the Jehovah’s Witness’ invisible return of Jesus Christ in 1916, and the Orthodox pre-fall universe. In all of those “materialism” would be completely rejected in favor of personal experience and the opinions of virtuous and revered persons.
What that teaches us is not that “materialistic” thinking is bad, but rather that when you reject rational argument and evidence, you can end up believing any darned thing. For those to whom this is not a concern, religion is a viable option.
JamesK says:
I do know that faith (in the generic sense) is a necessary part of human existence.
At the bottom of every religion, every philosophy, every “world view”, is faith. Certain presuppositions that, why they can be examined, are none the less foundational, and in a certain sense “absolute” in that they either are, or are not. The problem is that many (most?) modernists/materialists/philosophical naturalism will not or can not admit their presuppositions, their faith. That is why it is refreshing to come across individual materialists like the one Michael quoted above. Allow me to requote what Richard Lewontin admits:
Now there is a materialist who understands his a prior commitments. With such a materialist, these long threads would be much shorter, because both the Christians and the materialists would quickly get to the point where, as C.S Lewis would say “are differences go all the way down”.
Think back to what Fr. Jacobse said about Time. both of these views are based on faith. Think about what Lossky said about creation ex nihilist (or was it Chesterton?): whether you are a Neo-Epicurean, and believe in the eternity of matter/energy, or believe in creation ex nihilo, you are still resting on faith…