This post over at Reason to Stand is the kind of post that I wish I had written.
Excerpt:
There is an old saying that “war is hell”. That saying applies as much to ideological warfare as it does to physical warfare. Sure, the pain and consequences are often (though not necessarily) radically different, but the brutality is no less real.
I am constantly amazed by other Christians who oooh and ahhh when I relay stories of past exploits where I’ve engaged people from various ideological backgrounds. They are usually enamored by such tailes and some even form a desire to join in such exploits themselves among the people they encounter on a daily basis.
But for far too many, it ends there. I never see them later and hear their grand tales of past exploits. They never take the steps to become a warrior.
Why is that?
And then he quotes a quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer which has a special meaning for me. I know that quote very well.
This post really struck at the core of my frustration with the church. Basically, the biggest problem with church is that it is all about having fun and having your emotions tickled. There is no part of church that suggests the idea that being an authentic Christian might require any work at all. And certainly nothing to make you think that being a Christian might involve any conflict – like opposing atheism in debates, or opposing abortion, or even secularized public schools that teach evolution and sex education with taxpayer money.
I was recently listening to an episode of Unbelievable where an atheistic female politician was debating Os Guinness, who I consider to be a functional atheist. But forget about the debate. The main thing that was interesting was that the woman was quite a high ranking politician and she attended church because she enjoyed the beautiful building, the community of nice people dressed up, and especially the nice music and singing. But, her actual beliefs were atheistic.
I actually know a few women who are pro-abortion, pro-same-sex-marriage, pro-big-government, who also enjoy attending church for the singing, and such. And my point is that church, as Wes noted in his post, does nothing to tell people that there is anything more to Christianity than singing, pageantry and community. What matters is the show. In Catholic and Orthodox churches, the show is the liturgy. In Protestant churches, the show is the dancing and the singing and the talking about life having meaning and someone looking out for us who will give us goodies no matter what we do.
Do you know who gets left out of the church in this picture? People who actually think that Christianity is true, and who know how to talk about it, and how to live it out. It’s disgusting. Read Wes’ post and think about it. We need to be celebrating our warriors, not the pastors and especially not the worship leaders. The people who actually talk about Christianity outside the church. That should be the marker of authentic Christianity – not singing, and not talking about things from a pulpit in a sing-song voice.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Why do you think Os Guinness is a functional atheist?
LikeLike
Because I am mad at him for denouncing the “right wing” and making videos for the anti-intelligent design BIOLOGOS group.
LikeLike
Have you read any of his books?
LikeLike
Sorry. I ask “have you read any of his books”, because it’s often easy to dismiss a person’s arguments for trivial reasons. Os has written many profound texts on the deep effects Christians should have on culture; if he’s taken the wrong position on creation or conservatism, it may well be that he has deep rather than shallow reasons for it.
I admit that I wouldn’t want to be associated with Biologos after what they did to Mohler, though. Even though I agree with their primary message and disagree with Mohler’s on that specific issue, I think what they did was vile. (OTOH, what you’re doing, calling him a “functional atheist”, is similar to what I’m unhappy with them about — I’m not annoyed with you merely because you’re doing this on your own blog rather than in the Huffington Post.)
LikeLike
Well, I am just annoyed by him. Obviously I went too far in calling him a functional atheist. Look my view is that theistic evolution is functional atheism. The view that you cannot know anything about God by doing science is atheism, in my view. And the theistic evolutionists agree with atheists on that.
If you have a view like Mike Behe’s where he is an ID guy who accepts common descent, I consider him to be fine. My problem is not with someone who has scientific reasons for accepting things like common ancestry because there is SOME evidence for that – although I don’t accept it. My problem is with naturalists who have a naturalistic pre-supposition and attempt to beat scientific evidence up until it fits their pre-supposition.
As far as I am concerned, Biologos is the kind of group that is purely atheistic and just uses god-talk to confuse people. If they had evidential objections, then that would be different – but it’s all about the religious pre-supositions with them. When you look at the way that non-Darwinian Christians are treated by theistic evolutionists in the academy, there is no way that I am going to cut them any slack.
LikeLike
Look my view is that theistic evolution is functional atheism.
I understand in general — I believed the same thing a year ago.
The view that you cannot know anything about God by doing science is atheism, in my view. And the theistic evolutionists agree with atheists on that.
That’s just flatly false. Both TE’s and A-t’s believe you can know about God from nature. The atheists believe nature proves that God doesn’t exist; the TE’s believe that nature reveals facts about how God works that are so clear they reveal our misreading of the Bible (or, for some of them, actually TRUMP the Bible — I disagree with those).
It’s anti-evolutionists who believe that you can’t know anything about God by studying nature; no natural science could EVER challenge the words of scripture in Genesis 1, no matter how abundant the evidence: if it looks like it contradicts, it’s wrong, and later evidence will emerge to prove it wrong. (Am I being unfair? I don’t think so — I’m speaking from my own beliefs as of a year ago.)
If you have a view like Mike Behe’s where he is an ID guy who accepts common descent, I consider him to be fine.
Why? From our former common point of view, he’s an evolutionist, exactly as hard of a one as I am. (Like him, I accept that God intervenes; unlike him, I don’t see any obvious need for intervention.)
I suspect the reason Behe is fine (and I suspect the reason I’m not fine, forgive my presumption on that point) is that Behe provides useful anti-evolution arguments, and I don’t.
My problem is not with someone who has scientific reasons for accepting things like common ancestry because there is SOME evidence for that – although I don’t accept it. My problem is with naturalists who have a naturalistic pre-supposition and attempt to beat scientific evidence up until it fits their pre-supposition.
Surely you can simply “have a problem” with people who beat scientific evidence up, regardless of their pre-supposition, right? So Behe should be as annoying to you as anyone else who incorrectly believes in common descent, although less so than someone who also rejects the reality of divine speciation.
As far as I am concerned, Biologos is the kind of group that is purely atheistic and just uses god-talk to confuse people.
If I may digress to talk about MY problems with Biologos — aside from the sheer lack of charity they showed Mohler — I would say that their problem is not any kind of atheism, but rather is caused by the huge prevalence of theistic evolutionists who are textual liberals (who solve problems in the Bible by pulling out scissors). Not all TE’s reject the authority of the Scriptures, but many of the Biologos people seem utterly ignorant of that.
If they had evidential objections, then that would be different – but it’s all about the religious pre-supositions with them.
That’s not a just accusation; I’ve seen them write amongst themselves, and it’s NOT “all about” the religious presuppositions at all. They have a TON of evidence, on many independent lines. Perhaps they’re wrong, but you cannot hide the evidence.
When you look at the way that non-Darwinian Christians are treated by theistic evolutionists in the academy, there is no way that I am going to cut them any slack.
I can respect the justice of that.
-Wm
LikeLike
Your picture of the world, scientifically, is indistinguishable from the picture than an atheist has of the world. The expressions of faith you make are your personal opinions that you have no scientific evidence for them since you rule it out a priori. That’s what I mean by functional atheism. With respect to objective scientific knowledge, you are an atheist. Your view of religion as blind faith (with respect to science) is identical to the view of atheists. You both agree that science reveals no evidence of a Creator and Designer that interacts with the world and his creatures.
Oh, just FYI, I am not a young earth creationist.
Listen to this debate between Behe and theistic evolutionist, and see who has scientific evidence and who has religious presuppositions:
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/radio-debate-between-michael-behe-and-keith-fox-on-intelligent-design/
LikeLike
I’m actually really curious as to why you think my “God-words” are “personal opinion for which [I] have no evidence”. That’s a fascinating statement, since the only thing I’ve disagreed with you about is theistic evolution. Does this mean that you think the absence of evolution is the only possible evidence anyone can ever have for the existence and nature of God? How could that possibly work?
(P.S. I haven’t been a YEC for 6-7 years now; Ross’ RTB convinced me otherwise. If I decide that the Bible makes Theistic Evolution impossible, though, I don’t see how I could go back to OEC — the Bible is too much a YEC document. If I’m convinced otherwise, I’m heading the same direction as Todd C Wood — looking for actual evidence for creation, not just grasping at straws finding ANYTHING that looks awkward for evolution.)
LikeLike
The argument for intelligent design is a positive argument – an inference from the evidence. Take a look at “Signature in the Cell”.
You look at nature and you think agree with atheists that intelligent causes are nowhere evident. That’s your view. You said “I don’t see any obvious need for intervention”. The only way you can say this is by assuming naturalism, since actual scientific evidence clearly implicates intelligent causes.
Regarding the Bible, it is compatible with OEC:
http://origins.org/articles/bradley_trustworthiness.html
LikeLike
Hey Wintery! It’s been a while. :) Hope you’re doing well.
I share your frustration with people who I call “cultural Christians” who go through the motions of Christianity without the beliefs or the relationship with God.
About “functional atheism” – when you say that “The God-words you use are your personal opinions that you have no evidence for,” I have to point out that there are many forms of evidence. People can thoughtfully come to God by studying history or even (horrors! :)) philosophy… Or even being led by Him without objective evidence that we would accept as such. After all, the Apostle Paul was given a supernatural vision, not evolutionary arguments. It’s not “personal preference” or “BLIND faith” just because it’s based on a different sort of evidence.
And this coming from a scientist. :) I don’t mean to get on your case every time I show up; I think that what you do on your blog is wonderful, and important. I love the synopses of debates and the summaries of different sorts of evidence for God. I just feel that all the non-scientifically-minded people who love our Saviour shouldn’t feel that their faith is belittled in discussions like this. :)
LikeLike
Well, I fixed my mean comment so it is less mean.
I understand that we may disagree about whether science shows that nature can do all the creating of life on its own. I understand that you think that history and philosophy can seal the deal for Christianity. If all you are saying is that you don’t KNOW the science, then you are NOT my target. Although you really should let me BUY YOU the book “Who made God?” by Edgar Andrews. My Dad just finished it and he loved it. He gave me a long speech just now on how much he appreciates the work I put into buying him books to read. He’s going to find a new one now.
My problem is with NATURALISTS. People who think that nature can NEVER show evidence that God did anything by using his intelligence to choose and sequence – like a programmer does. My problem is that I think that the scientific evidence doesn’t support the naturalistic scenario – nature shows evidence of intelligent causes. And I think that people who doubt that nature shows evidence of intelligent causes is not based on science, but based on the the presumption of naturalism, and perhaps peer pressure, the need to be accepted by peers, the need to advance in the academy and professionally, etc.
LikeLike
Oh, one other thing. I have a lot of sympathy for your disgust at groups like Biologos (I suspect your attitude towards myself is based on your attitude towards their actions). A lot of what those groups have said about ID and creationism in general is slanderous, and most of it is hateful. I’m not sure why there’s so much rancor in this debate; all I can say is that until we can all discuss the issues with charity and wisdom, few people will be convinced by any amount of evidence. This isn’t just an issue with one organization; it’s something I see in people on both sides.
LikeLike
Sigh… what makes me mad is the what Fox says in the debate, and what happens in the movie expelled. The ID guy try to argue evidence and the TEs counter with theology and philosophical assumptions. Why can’t we just do the science and see what the science says, no holds barred? Why do people like William Dembski have to be drummed out of the academy when they are a 1000 times more intelligent than all the naturalists put together?
LikeLike
Thanks for fixing the “mean” comment, Wintery – and I know you didn’t intend it in a mean way in the first place. :)
Also, thanks for the offer of the book! I’m pretty familiar with the science, particularly in the biology area. I haven’t read that particular book, though, so I will try to check it out from the library one of these days. I do think that history and/or philosophy and/or personal experience can “seal the deal” for a belief in Jesus on their own – and I also believe that science can seal it. Anything that leads people to Christ is a good thing.
I don’t think that nature can never show evidence of God… After all, “the heavens declare the glory of God,” right? However, I think it’s reasonable for people to doubt the conclusivity of evidence in this area. For one thing, how conclusive it is depends largely on how much, and which, evidence a person comes across. Not everyone has the time or inclination to study a particular subject in depth – and until they do, doubt is reasonable. Blogs like this are a great resource for people who do have the inclination. Thanks. :)
LikeLike
Just to be clear, this post has some links to arguments that I would make from a science perspective: (at the bottom)
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/pro-id-scientist-ann-gauger-interviewed-on-mike-behes-latest-paper/
I was just reading “Signature in the Cell” today because it is my lunch book. That’s the best book on intelligent design, and was picked as a “Book of the Year” by the UK Times Literary Supplement… by famous ATHEIST philosopher Thomas Nagel. Have you read that one?
LikeLike
The argument for intelligent design is a positive argument – an inference from the evidence.
I’m aware of this claim; I was an enthusiastic supporter of ID, until I realized that neither Behe nor Dembski were going to fix the fundamental flaws in their arguments (as a mathematician, I doubt that it’s possible using the current mathematical tools). Having realized that, I retreated to the negative arguments against evolution. BTW, I still respect Behe, and his argument may actually have truth to it even if it’s not something we can compute right now; Dembski I’m a little skeptical about, since his “specified complexity” argument is SO badly flawed.
The problem is that the “positive arguments” of ID are handwaving, not math; and they’ve been contradicted by actual evolutionary experiments that prove beyond a doubt they’re handwaving. Even if they were true, Behe admits that most of evolution would still be valid and likely to be true.
You look at nature and you think agree with atheists that intelligent causes are nowhere evident. That’s your view.
That’s the opposite of my view. You have twice now attributed a claim to me without any evidence.
However, although I think that intelligent causation is evident, I do not, from that, jump to conclusions about the means by which the intelligent causation created.
You said “I don’t see any obvious need for intervention”.
Yes, I don’t. Not INTERVENTION, that is; but I do see a need for design. (I also said that I don’t deny the possibility of intervention, by the way. For example, it seems likely to me that Adam and Eve are direct divine creations, although I may be wrong.)
The only way you can say this is by assuming naturalism, since actual scientific evidence clearly implicates intelligent causes.
Indeed it does — but that doesn’t entail a need for intervention. And yes, that does imply naturalism; as God told us, “it rains on the just and the unjust”, as God displays His lawful mind in the lawful workings of His ordinary providence. This doesn’t mean that nature is all that exists; on the contrary, a coherent nature is one of the most solid evidences for the rationality of God that there is.
Look at embryology. We now have a good deal of understanding of how the chemicals and organ systems within the womb form us, and nobody who had any clue would deny it… So does this prove that God did NOT knit each of us in our mother’s womb? On the contrary: it informs us exactly HOW God does that wonderful work.
-Wm
LikeLike
If you have actual evolutionary experiments that produce life from non-life under natural circumstances using material causes, then by all means – PRODUCE IT. I would love to see the evidence that goes from the likely environment on the early earth to a self-replicating organism. Where are these experiments published? Where is the published refutation of Stephen C. Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell”? I know that you have a philosophy that rules it out a priori – but I want the experiments that refute it – the science.
Natural causes cannot do the job to evolve life in 40 million years available from the end of the Hadean to the appearance of first life. If material processes can do the creating that you expect them to do without any intelligent cause intervening, then by all means – SHOW ME THE EXPERIMENTS. I can see your bias – what I want is the scientific experiments showing that natural causes can create even ONE simple protein. I’ve got published JMB articles (Doug Axe) that show it can’t be done. I’ve got the Lenski studies that confirm Behe’s hypothesis. Where are YOUR peer-reviewed papers showing that nature can do the creating that you say it can?
Re: Intervention for Adam and Eve. That’s off-topic and there is no way you could verify Adam and Eve scientifically. We are talking about science here – what science can show. Like I said, keep your God-talk out of the debate. As far as I’m concerned, nothing you say about Christianity is knowledge, since you don’t KNOW that a miracle-working God exists from the scientific evidence. It’s just blind faith on your part to assert belief in Adam and Eve. If you don’t KNOW that God exists and can perform miracles IN TIME from the science, then talking about miracles will just come down to blind faith. We don’t do blind faith on this blog – this isn’t the Panda’s Thumb or the NCSE.
Re: embryology. The womb function is a result of the specified complexity in the cell – which is what you need to explain. I want to see the experiments that show the specified complexity FOR THE WOMB being produced by natural causes. I don’t want to hear about your religious beliefs. I want to see the experiments. Show me the scientific data. I want to see the experiments that show that the material processes can do all the creating that you ASSUME they can do. Lab experiments. Peer-reviewed research.
LikeLike
I understand that you think that history and philosophy can seal the deal for Christianity.
I know you’re not talking to me there… But I’ll just chip in that unlike you, I think that science can also help to show not only THAT God designed, but HOW He did it.
If all you are saying is that you don’t KNOW the science, then you are NOT my target.
Since I already claimed to have studied, accepted, and understood ID and then the science, I’m clearly in the reticule.
-Wm
LikeLike
Wintery Knight, when I reply I’m going to do so to a newer post, since this is just getting too long and way off-topic.
For now, let it be noted that whether I’m right or wrong about the evidence for evolution, and whether I’m right or wrong in claiming that evolution cannot possibly explain the origin of the cell (I claim it cannot, while you claim it can), I’m certainly correct in claiming that a belief in evolution is not functional atheism. It may be wrong; but it is not atheism per se.
-Wm
LikeLike
I never said that evolution can explain the origin of the cell. It can’t since evolution (mutation and selection) requires a replication system to work on and therefore cannot be the cause of the first replicator.
LikeLike
Spoken like a true person who doesn’t attend church services or small groups. :)
LikeLike
Good points. I’m teaching a series on world religions, evangelism and apologetics and really enjoying it. But I never hear of other classes doing this.
How does your church teach these topics?
LikeLike
I was thinking of different things for my church and working with one of the associate pastors on this. In my research, I’ve come across this:
Click to access telos_visualoverview.pdf
I was thinking maybe a software engineering approach may be useful here, especially utilizing applications online or social media. People at my quaint, medium-sized church (who meet at a middle school) have little to no knowledge in theology or have an incredibly basic grasp on Christian doctrine. These people don’t like having to go to “classes”, but going in and just demanding them to take it anyway doesn’t seem like it will be a sustainable program in the long-run. I’ve heard that conversation/dialogue-based approaches (a la Socrates) seem to resonate with people nowadays…
LikeLike
I think the thing to do is to show what a guy like William Lane Craig or Stephen C. Meyer or Michael Behe can do in a debate situation. Any Christian who SEES that is going to want to DO that. If they don’t want to DO that (as best as they can) or at least SUPPORT IT is not a real Christian. Ever real Christian rejoices when the truth about God is presented in a logical and evidence-based way.
LikeLike
Knight’s suggestion of a debate as a demonstration isn’t a bad idea at all. Of course, doing that has a risk that it also shows people FAR more than they’ll ever have to go up against — Dr. Craig is a Heavy Cruiser, and most of the people at your church will be called as no more than footsoldiers.
Another suggestion (not exclusive!) is to pull in some of the more level-appropriate curricula… Stand to Reason (str.org) has some brilliant stuff that’s both approachable and scalable (i.e. it’s not oversimplified or stupid), and they’ve prepared some very good study-group DVDs, guides, and kits (their Ambassador Basic Curriculum is excellent, as is their approach to pro-life advocacy). http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com has a lot of free material, most of which is really high quality (its podcast is also fascinating, and the fact that the ‘caster is a converted atheist who works as a cold-case homicide detective is attention-getting).
LikeLike
Hmmmn, those are all good suggestions…
LikeLike