Following The Chain Of Joy

"Now, if you love what He made, what must He be who made it? If the world is beautiful, what must be the Author of the world?" (unknown source, in Mary Magdeleine Mueller, trans., St. Caesarius: Sermons, Volume I [1-80] [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004], Sermon 21:5, p. 110)

Charlie Kirk and chaos

I believe what we have witnessed in Charlie Kirk's assassination by an LGBTQ+ and specifically trans-friendly killer and continue to witness in its wake is ultimately a spiritual war.

Please let me take a step or two back. Here's what I mean.

The God of the Bible is a God of order, not chaos. Arguably distinctions are necessary for there to be order. At least the God of the Bible orders creation by making distinctions.

So, for instance, God separates light from darkness, day from night, water from land. He distinguishes between the greater light (sun) to rule the day and the lesser light (moon) to rule the night.

He distinguishes between creatures of the sea, land, and air. He distinguishes among land creatures - livestock, crawling things, wild animals.

He distinguishes between humans made in his image from animals. And he distinguishes between male and female.

Such distinctions and separations help order creation. Indeed, creation started out as "formless and empty". Roughly speaking, the first 3 days of creation God forms the formless, while the last 3 days of creation God fills the empty.

However, when we blur or erase distinctions, such as when we blur or erase the distinction between male and female by saying saying men can be women and women can be men, that there are no inherent differences between male and female, then we attempt to unravel the created order. We attempt to introduce chaos into the created order. This wreaks havoc. Like intentionally slashing a knife several times across Van Gogh's Starry Night to mar it beyond recognition.

I think that may be one reason why the apostle Paul in Romans 1 uses idolatry and homosexuality as emblematic or paradigmatic examples of human rebellion, for idolatry attempts to blur or blot out the distinction between the Creator and the creature, while homosexuality attempts to blur or blot out the distinction between male and female.

As such, idolatry and homosexuality represent paradigmatic examples or perhaps even the epitome of the creature rebelling against the Creator by attempting to turn the created order into chaos.

And, not coincidentally, that's precisely what Satan and his fallen hordes would love to see happen to creation. They can't hurt God directly, but they can destroy what he has made. They can turn his entire creation including his creatures - most of all the creatures which bear his own image - into chaos. By disordering the ordered, they can unmake what God has made, they can uncreate creation.

Satan and his ilk know there's no redemption for them. Yet, if they must burn, then they want the world to burn with them. They want to take down as many as they can - deep down, down to the fiery pits of hell.

Charlie Kirk's killer is cut from the same cloth in terms of motivation and endgame. Not only him, but there seems to be a destructive and even self-destructive nihilism animating much if not most of the left today. (I won't bothsides this, which would be like comparing the LA wildfires to a solitary matchstick.)

If the killer is guilty and receives the death penalty, then I hope he repents before he is executed. If he remains impenitent at death, then he will join the father of lies and a murderer from the beginning and the primeval demons in the lake of fire.

I realize all this is at best an inchoate sketch. Nevertheless I hope it conveys something of why I think it's ultimately a spiritual war.

Is God more honored or dishonored in the world?

The question is a variation of the issue of whether there's more good than evil in life, and it's a good variation that doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. John Piper addressed it and made some good points in the process on a recent edition of "Ask Pastor John".

The creation of Adam

1. I've discussed this before, but I'd like to explore a variation. If I stepped into a time machine and went back to Eden, just before God created Adam, what would I see? We can't say for sure since the narrative is sketchy, so there's more than one way to mentally pencil in the details, but here's one way.

2. I see a man standing in the garden. I'm not saying the figure is a man. I'm just referring to what he looks like. In reality, the "man" is God, who assumed angelic form to create Adam. In Scripture, some angels are seraphim/cherubim. But we wouldn't expect God to assume cherubic form. They are symbolic guardians of the divine throne room. 

Other angels are luminous beings. It's possible that God was luminous. 

At other times, angels appear to be indistinguishable from human males. Suppose that's the case. 

In that event, Adam was literally made in God's image. He was made in God's image when God assumed human form to create Adam. 

3. So let's say I see a man in the garden, although he's God in the form of a humanoid angel. Suppose he reaches down and scoops a lump of clay from the ground. He begins shaping the clay. At the same time, he multiplies the size of the lump. Like a sculptor, he creates a life-size clay figurine of a human male. He then brings it to life by breathing into its nostrils. The clay is transformed into a human body, and the human body is animated. 

4. I don't mean animated in the sense of ensoulment. I'm referring to biological life. The narrative is silent on the question of dualism. The primary biblical witness to dualism occurs in eschatological texts concerning the intermediate state.     

An interview with Gunter Bechly

"Interview: Gunter Bechly (Paleontologist)"

Is divine agency inexplicable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52XsW6jD4eg&t=61s

I thought Craig gave a perfectly good answer. But I'd go about it somewhat differently.

i) It's true that the atheist questioner overstated his case about universal negatives. There are situations in which it's possible to prove a universal negative. We don't have to search every square inch of Jupiter to know there are no giraffes on Jupiter. We only have to know the kind of environment an animal like a giraffe requires for survival, and know that Jupiter's environment is inimical to giraffes. 

Likewise, we can know that no Tibetan monk has ever been president of the United States. And so on.

ii) That said, there are other situations in which it's not possible in principle to prove a universal negative. In addition, there are situations in which it's possible in principle but not in practice. Finally, there are situations in which it's technical possible, but very difficult. 

iii) And this goes to the burden of proof, which is quite germane in some Christian/atheist debates. The questioner is right about that. Are we holding both sides to a reasonable standard? Is the burden of proof the same for each? 

Ironically, the questioner's observation backfires. As I've often remarked, when it comes to the subject of miracles the burden of proof is radically asymmetrical. On the one hand an atheist must eliminate every reported miracle from consideration. On the other hand, a Christian only needs a few good examples to establish their reality. So the atheist must assume a self-imposed burden of proof that's completely unrealistic. He can't justifiably rule out every reported miracle in advance of examining the evidence. 

iv) The questioner then asserts that invoking divine agency is an appeal to something inherently inexplicable, so it doesn't solve the problem but compounds the problem. Appealing to something even more incomprehensible to explain something we don't understand.

v) Unfortunately, he fails to just what he means or defend his claim. Does he mean the very concept of God is inexplicable? If so, there are detailed philosophical explications and models of the divine attributes. So on the face of it, God is not inexplicable in that sense. 

Indeed, it's something of a dilemma for an atheist to say God is unintelligible. For what is the atheist denying?

vi) Then there's the God of biblical narratives. Does he mean that representation of God is inexplicable? But far from being inexplicable, biblical representations of God are often anthropomorphic. The Bible God acts like a recognizable agent. Intelligent. Having intentions. Analogous in some ways to human agents. 

vii) Perhaps his objection is not to the concept of God but the concept of divine agency. If so, what's inherently inexplicable about the concept of divine agency? It's a variation on personal agency. We're certainly very familiar with that concept.

viii) Maybe his objection isn't to personal agency in general but mental causation in particular. Yet humans have direct experience with mental causation. And there's strong evidence that minds are immaterial, yet able to act on the physical. 

ix) Maybe he means the concept of an agent who subsists outside of space and time is inexplicable. But we do have a concept of things that exist outside of space and time. Abstract objects are the paradigm example. Even if you're a physicalist or nominalist, abstract objects are not conceptually unintelligible. 

x) But perhaps he means to say it's inexplicable how a timeless spaceless agent causes things to happen in space and time. If so, one problem with that objection is that the concept of causation is someway mysterious and resistant to final analysis. 

For instance, we normally think of a medium that transmits the cause to the effect. But if we insist on that as a necessary condition for cause and effect, it leads to infinite regress or infinite divisibility. Must there always be some intervening medium to bridge the gap, or must it bottom out at direct causation to avoid an infinite regress or infinite divisibility?

xi) It can't be inexplicable because atheists lack a concept of the supernatural. Atheists reject certain reported phenomena because they regard them as naturally impossible. But that demands a point of contrast. Naturalism is typically defined in terms of the world as a closed system of matter and energy. That's all there is. So the concept of the supernatural involves concepts to the contrary.  

Vegetarians or carnivores?

Young earth creationists (YECs) typically argue there was no animal death either before the Fall or before the Flood. Moreover YECs typically argue animals were vegetarians either before the Fall or before the Flood, but became carnivorous either in the postlapsarian or postdiluvian period. The basis for their arguments is exegetical.

By contrast, OT scholar Iain Provan offers a different exegetical argument about animal death and animal feeding behavior in Seriously Dangerous Religion (pp 226-234).

Why is the Spirit the "Spirit"?

Why is the Spirit of God called the "Spirit"? I've discussed this before, but I'd like to be a bit more discriminating this time. Seems to me that "ruach/pneuma" trades on several connotations, all of which are germane to this member of the Trinity:

1. In Biblical usage, a spirit is:

i) A personal agent

ii) A discarnate agent

So one reason for the designation is to indicate both the personality and incorporeity of the Spirit. The Spirit is not a power or force. And the Spirit is not a physical being like the humanoid gods of the heathen pantheon. Put another way, Yahweh is incorporeal. 

In this regard, the designation connotes the essential identity Spirit. The name has a metaphysical or ontological connotation. 

2. It has life-giving connotations. The breath of life. So the name indicates that the Spirit is the source of biological life.

3. Apropos (2), by extension, it also connotes the Spirit as the source of inner renewal or regeneration. Figurative life as well as  biological life.

4. Finally, it has connotations of divine speech. The spoken word is breath. So it signifies the role of the Spirit as the source of inspiration, revelation, and agency of Scripture. 

In that regard, the designation connotes the economic identity of the Spirit. The name connotes his creative and recreative activity in the world, as well as his revelatory role. 

Hail, gladdening light

Once again I'm going to revisit one of my favorite topics: the biblical symbolism of light. There's always something new to say. 

i) Let's begin with some preliminary distinctions. Take the distinction between interior and exterior illumination. Natural examples of interior illumination include lamps, candlelight, and a fireplace. Natural examples of exterior illumination include lightning, sunlight, full moonlight, and campfire. 

ii) Interior illumination may create a contrast between light on the inside and darkness outside. Conversely, exterior illumination may create a contrast between darkness on the inside and light on the outside.

iii) A building may be illuminated from the inside (e.g. candlelight) or the outside (e.g. sunlight shining though windows, skylights, oculus). 

iv) Inside and outside are comparative relations. For instance, heaven is external to the world while the world is external to heaven. 

v) In addition to interior/exterior illumination is portable illumination (e.g. a torch). Portable illumination can shift from interior  to exterior illumination or vice versa. For instance, you can light a torch from a campfire, then take that inside to illuminate the dark interior. Or you can light a torch from a fireplace, then take that outside to shine in the darkness.  

Primeval ice

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Gen 1:1-5).

Progressive/secular Bible scholars think v2 alludes to a preexistent primordial ocean. But is that consistent with what ancient people were in a position to know? What state does water take in the absent of sunlight? Ice. Denizens in the Middle East knew from personal experience that desert temperatures plummet after dark. They were acquainted with hail and snow. They knew about icy mountains. 

Ice wasn't a foreign substance to them. And the relationship between sunlight and heat wasn't a foreign concept to them.

So, from a natural standpoint, if water preexisted sunlight, that wouldn't be a primeval ocean. That wouldn't be liquid, but solid. 

Of course, from a supernatural standpoint, God doesn't need sunlight to have liquified H2O. And even humans can melt ice with fire. But my immediate point is that the mythological conception which some Bible scholars impute to ancient Near Eastern writers doesn't mesh with what they knew about the world, if they gave it much thought. 

To be sure, many people are thoughtless. However, there are always some observant, reflective people who do think things through. So this is another example where desk-bound Bible scholar makes questionable assumptions about the ancient mindset. Modern scholars don't think about these things because they don't live off the land. They don't have to be keen observers of nature to survive. They are cocooned from the harsh elements by modern technology. But ancient people had to be highly attentive to the workings of nature to survive. 

Creation reversed

Narratives like Gen 1 or Gen 2-3 are brief and sketchy, yet inexhaustible. There's always something new you didn't notice before. 

I'm going to revisit my abiding interest in the biblical symbolism of light. On the one hand, each day in the Gen 1 creation account has something distinctive. Day 1 represents the creation of light. Light is God's first creation. And the creation of daylight entails night, as a necessary point of contrast. 

Day 2 represents the creation of the atmosphere, rainclouds, and the sea. Day 3 represents the creation of dry land and flora. I assume Gen 1 doesn't differentiate the creation of freshwater from saltwater because bodies of freshwater (lakes, rivers, ponds) are features of the land, in contrast to the sea. 

Day 4 represents the creation of celestial luminaries (sun, moon, stars). That raises questions about the causal and chronological relationship between Day 1 and Day 4, inasmuch as the diurnal cycle is already in place on day 1, which implies the existence of sunlight and solar days.

Day 5 represents the creation of volant animals and aquatic animals, while day 6 represents the creation of land animals and mankind. And Day 7 is striking for what doesn't happen. After six days of creative activity, the reader is primed for something to happen on day 7. But day 7 is a coda to creation.

On the other hand, there's a constant running through all 7 days, and that's the overarching motif of dawn and dusk, daylight and night. One thing that's prescient about the light motif is how that supplies the backdrop for eschatological judgment. One of the signs of final judgment is a solar eclipse, lunar eclipse, and shooting stars. And that represents a reversal of day 4 in particular, as well as the persistent role of light in the creation account generally. On the one hand, a dominant theme of creation is celestial illumination. On the other hand, a dominant theme of eschatological judgment is the darkening sky. A return to darkness as sun and moon are occluded, while the sky is emptied of stars as they fall to the earth. So eschatological judgment represents a reversion to primordial darkness, before the creation of daylight, sunlight, moonlight, or starlight. In addition, the crucifixion darkness prefigures the final judgment. 

The dispute over evolution and theology is asymmetric

I think the dispute over evolution and theology is not a symmetric one, as my friend Paul Garner would say.  My own efforts to understand God's creation from a creationist perspective could very well be wrong.  But if I am wrong, I have made mistakes about science because of my adherence to what I believe to be the Word of God.  On the other hand, if BioLogos and their followers are wrong, that seems to be a more serious matter.  They offer us a rather radically different vision of the Bible and the Christian message of sin, its source, and its consequences.  These strike me as far weightier matters that warrant great fear and trembling rather than cavalier enthusiasm.

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2019/04/my-visit-to-biologos.html

What is time?

Ever since Einstein, we're used to referring to the space-time continuum. It's often said that Relativity spatialized time. 

On the face of it, space seems physical in a way that time does not. Take an enclosed space like a basketball. Not to mention that finite space has measurable dimensions. Likewise, we move through space. So space seems to be very concrete. 

Mind you, pure geometry deals with abstract spaces. Likewise, dreams and video games have simulated space. 

But we don't move through time the way we move through space. In one respect, time appears to be physical. Physical states and objects undergo change. A temporal process. So it seems like time is a mode of the universe. 

Likewise, it's often said that God created time when he made the universe. He made the universe with time rather than in time. There was no preexistent time. 

However, human mental states are temporally successive. But if thoughts aren't physical, then the temporality of the mental process can't be physical, either. 

And even at the level of physics, there are theories of a cyclic or oscillating universe, where there's a series of cosmic births and deaths and rebirths. Even if those theories are false, it doesn't seem incoherent in principle to say that one universe would be earlier while another universe would be later. 

If so, then time can't just be a mode of the universe, since on that view it ceases to exist when the current universe ceases to exist, then starts anew when a new universe comes into being. But to speak of a temporal series of universes assumes an overarching timeline or relative chronology that transcends any particular universe, and carries through the changes. That's what makes the model sequential. 

However, it's possible to think of time as abstract. Take a novel or script. That has a plot. One thing happens after another. But unless it's enacted, the plot remains static. 

Perhaps, then, we should say a mental process exemplifies time, a physical process exemplifies time. On that view, time isn't essentially physical, but physical states and processes represent time or temporal relations (precedence, simultaneity, succession). 

Why Study The Paranormal?

On Facebook, in a thread about my recent post on the Enfield Poltergeist, Steve Hays made a comment about how discussing the paranormal is useful in responding to naturalism. Here's something I wrote in response:

There are a lot of reasons to study the paranormal. Responding to naturalism is part of what's involved. A lot of people who aren't naturalists raise issues relevant to the paranormal as well (agnostics who say that they're open to the supernatural, but that there isn't enough evidence for it; people who believe in the paranormal, but significantly underestimate how much evidence there is for it; etc.).

BioLogos backs down

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/discussion-is-over-on-adam-and-the-genome-former-biologos-fellow-backs-down/

Pictograms

I was asked to comment on this essay:

https://www.academia.edu/29550502/A_Historical-Grammatical_and_Polemical_Reading_of_Genesis_1

for the most part I find the questions posed by both YEC and OEC advocates to be somewhat puzzling, because both positions appear, to me at least, to be asking thoroughly modern questions of a completely ancient text. I simply cannot understand how anyone believes that the author of Genesis had the hydrologic cycle of the early earth in mind when writing about the separation of the waters above and the waters  below in the 2nd millennia BCE.2

the best understanding of Genesis 1 is not as a scientific account of creation (a la YEC or OEC), nor is it a kind of demythologized and wholly non-historical plagiarism of other Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) creation myths (a la Delitzsche, Gunkel, or Enns); but rather, it is a purposeful, literary, and polemical taunting of the religious and cultural foes of the early Israelites as they were about to enter the land of Canaan in order to steer them toward religious fidelity to YHWH alone.

That's a strawman. Sure, Gen 1 is not a scientific description of cosmic and biological origins. It uses prescientific language. But that's beside the point. The point, rather, is whether this is a factual description of cosmic and biological origins. A scientific interpretation is a second-order exercise. 

Genesis 1:1 is the first event, not a summary

"Genesis 1:1 is the first event, not a summary" by Vern Poythress.

Dictionary Of Christianity And Science

I recently saw Chad Gross posting about an upcoming book that looks promising.

Mavericks and gatekeepers

A question that's routinely posed in the creation/evolution debate is: "If evolution is false, then why do most scientists believe in evolution? Is there a conspiracy to lie about the origins of life?"

As a matter of fact, science is becoming increasingly politicized. And you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that. To some degree, it's right out in the open. However, in my observation, there are roughly four kinds of scientists. At least, four different kinds in relation to this question:

i) Footsoldiers

Some scientists unquestionably believe whatever they were taught in their science courses as students. It's just not in their psychological makeup to reexamine claims for themselves. 

When my father attended college in the late 30s and 40s (his attendance was interrupted by service in WWII, after which he resumed college on the GI bill), he had a physics prof. who thought the periodic table was cast in bronze. 

When one day in class my father mentioned to him that scientists had discovered a new element, his physic prof. refused to acknowledge the finding. For him, the periodic table was unalterable. Like the deposit of faith, a once-and-for-all-time deliverance. It was too late to add to the periodic stable. It would forever be what the professor learned when he was taking science courses. Now, this was a science prof. at a major state university. 

ii) Zealots

Some scientists are crusaders for evolution. This is their holy cause in life. For them it's a battle between progressive enlightenment and regressive superstition. They are on a mission to rid the world of religion. And Christianity in particular. 

iii) Quiet dissenters

Some scientists know there's something deficient about the standard evolutionary paradigm. The proposed mechanisms are inadequate. Or they may believe that purely natural processes just can't account for the result.

But that's something they only admit in private to trusted confidents. They don't reveal their misgivings in public due to justified fear of professional reprisal.

iv) Gifted mavericks

Some scientists or philosophers of science believe in the fact of evolution, or they believe that something like evolution must be true, but they think the current theory is flawed, and they say so in public. That's in part because they have a dominant personality. And that's in part because they rose of the top of their field through their brilliance and originality. They are independent thinkers. And they're so outstanding in their field that they can get away with bucking the status quo. The gatekeepers will attack them, but the attacks are impotent. 

Dealing with the Genre of Genesis and its Opening Chapters

"Dealing with the Genre of Genesis and its Opening Chapters" by Vern Poythress.