Thursday, July 23, 2020

What Atheism Cannot Explain, part 2


I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God.” (Isaiah 44:6b)



1.      Personal Free-Will (in the Ontological Sense).[1]  One tenet of philosophical materialism (the view that neither God, nor souls, but  only physical matter exists) is that our perceptions of making choices are illusory for the reasons that, as solely physical entities, they are merely the result of electrochemical firings of the interactions between the synapses in our neural system.  Yet such a view both utterly defies reality and leads to logical incoherence.  After all, since this view, if actually true, applies not only to the professors who teach these notions, but to students who are expected to understand them.  Astrophysicist John Polkinghorne has stated about the materialistic view that, “Thought is replaced by electrochemical neural events [which are] neither right nor wrong.  The world of rational discourse dissolves into the absurd chatter of firing synapses.  Quite frankly that cannot be right and none of us believes it to be so.[2]  Consequently, the notion of free-will is a brute reality that must be accounted for.  The Christian finds a sufficient cause for such free-will in the God of the Bible who freely knows and acts according to His own purposes.  The non-theist, by contrast, is a hostage to the logical ramification that free-agent personality cannot arise from “law-abiding” mindless physical entities and events.

Through the prophet Isaiah, the Lord God said, “‘To whom then will you compare me… says the Holy One.  Life up your eyes and see: who created these?” (Isaiah 40:25-26a).  In public debates I have, for example, raised the question to my opponents as to how they account for the beginning of the cosmos out of nothing at the Big Bang.  The replied either that a scientific answer would be sure to come in the future, or simply, that any notion of a “god-answer” would be a “non-starter.”  Yet neither offered a view that accounted for the brute scientific facts at all. 


[1] By “ontology” is meant the features of our nature as opposed to our social circumstances.

What Atheism Cannot Explain, part 1

           I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God.” (Isaiah 44:6b)

             Whenever scientists are confronted by natural phenomena,[1] they aren’t satisfied to just dismiss out-of-hand the hypotheses (educated speculations) that others propose, but rather they seek to offer superior explanations.  Simply rejecting the views of others is a sub-scientific endeavor while positively reconciling the evidence into a theory fulfills the ultimate goal of scientific investigation.  Since skeptics habitually dismiss Christian claims concerning the providence of God it is consequently appropriate to expect from them an accounting for the following body of phenomena on naturalistic grounds:  

1.      The universe had an absolute beginning from out of nothing at the Big Bang[2] in a manner that is consistent with Genesis 1:1.  Atheists cannot appeal to scientific causes since, prior to the Big Bang, neither space, time, matter, nor energy existed by which scientific events could happen.  Speculations by theoretical physicists about the potential existence of prior universes likewise cannot be tested scientifically.  The cause of the universe therefore was the God of the Bible.

2.      The initial creation exhibited a plethora of extremely-high fine-tuning characteristics with respect to the structure of the strong and weak nuclear forces within the atom, the strength of gravity, and the electromagnetic force, all of which have been necessary to yield a universe that has the capacity to support life.[3] Since these factors were present at the very beginning, they cannot, by definition, be the result of evolutionary processes.

3.      The presence of a genetic code within the DNA of the oldest and most primitive forms of life.  Bill Gates describes DNA as “like a Computer Program but far, far, more advanced than any software ever created.”[4]  Furthermore, genomic research indicates that “”not even [the most primitive of life forms] a parasite…can survive without at least 250 functioning gene products.[5]  Just a single uncoiled gene would extend thousands of miles and contain information that would require hundreds of telephone books to hold it if each letter represented a single base-pair.[6]

4.      Personal Consciousness.  The reality of both our awareness of ourselves and our perceptions of other phenomena through our senses, coupled with our capacity to distinguish the two, is an aspect of our nature that is easily reconcilable with being intentionally formed by an Intelligent God “in His own image” (Genesis 1:26).  On the other hand, devotees to materialism cannot account for consciousness which utterly transcends[7] mere physical matter (I can appreciate a rock; but that rock does not return the favor).

To be continued...     



[1] A “phenomenon” is a fact or situation that is observed to exist or occur, such as the landing of an airplane.
[2] William Lane Craig. Reasonable Faith 3rd ed. (Crossways, 2008), p. 126f.
[3] Hugh Ross. The Creator and the Cosmos 4th ed. (RTB, 2018), p. 233f.
[4] Bill Gates. The Road Ahead.
[5] Hugh Ross. Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach to End Creation/Evolution Wars. NavPress, 2006), p. 127.
[6] YouTube.com. The Open University. “The Information in DNA-DNA, RNA, and Protein Formation.” July 26, 2011.
[7] To transcend is to exist outside of a phenomenon that is under consideration, e.g. Christians say God stands outside of nature as its creator.
[8] By “ontology” is meant the features of our nature as opposed to our social circumstances.

Wednesday, July 22, 2020

How Genesis 1:1 Easily Accommodates Big Bang Cosmology


While Young-Earth Creationism Does Not

      Genesis 1:1 is grammatically a narration (as opposed to a heading) of the first stage of God’s creation of the universe with its opening declaration, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 is categorized as narrative in part because the verse which follows (1:2) begins with a conjunction “and” (waw-Hb), which could not[1] be the case if 1:1 was a title.[2]   In addition, since this waw precedes a noun (“earth”), its specific grammatical construction called a “waw-disjunctive,” which serves to clarify the conditions of the earth in that era.  Indeed 1:1 differs in grammatical style from other passages in the Book of Genesis that clearly are headings (2:4a, 5:1a, etc.).  Furthermore, if it actually was the case that 1:1 is a heading, then ironically the portion of what is universally acknow-ledged to be narrative as opposed to heading contains no reference at all to the creation of either the earth or the heavens!  For these reasons this text teaches that the entire cosmos, including both the sun and moon, were all created in 1:1 as opposed to later on Day 4.
 
2.      Genesis 1:1-2 is silent concerning the duration[3] of that initial creation event.  For this reason the task of determining the timeframe entailed in this first creation episode is a matter that is independent of the consideration of the length each of the six Days[4] which only begin later in 1:3.   This absence of a reference to duration in vs. 1-2 therefore allows a 13 billion-year history of the universe that entails NO compromise with Scripture.

3.      Genesis 1:1 states that the heavens were created at the very “beginning.”[5]  Consequently, the “two great lights” (specifically identified in regard to their purpose on Day 4) already existed prior to the first Day.  In light of the distinction that Hebrew vocabulary makes between the concepts, create out of nothing, make, and the progression of becoming visible, it is not at all certain from the vocabulary that these “lights” were created on Day Four.[6]  This essay resolves that apparent conflict by postulating from Scripture that at the time the earth was “young” (1:1), these extant “lights” weren’t yet visible from its surface because of heavy clouds that then blocked their rays from reaching it (1:2).  Only when the oppressive covering later began dissipating, could the light rays begin to penetrate the darkness (1:3).  Yet it was only later still, after that covering began breaking apart, that the lights first appeared from Earth’s surface as distinct spheres that were useful for marking seasons (1:14).     

4.      In a manner that is entirely consistent with scientific discoveries that our cosmos came into existence out of nothing, five biblical authors on eleven occasions, over 2,500 years prior to our scientific age independently declared that God “stretches out the heavens.”  These passages include Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15, and Zechariah 12:1.

Cosmologist Edwin Hubble first discovered this very same phenomenon by means of scientific observation (as opposed to biblical revelation) when he noticed through his telescope at Mount Wilson that galaxies outside of our “local” cluster[7] are retreating from each other (like the “stretching out the heavens”).  By their uniting of insights from Einstein’s General Relativity Theory with the documented fact that the cosmos is expanding, scientists, with both amazement and consternation, acknowledged that the cosmos came into existence out of nothing. As one LCMS publication conceded, scientists have concluded that “the universe is not static, but is expanding. This and related discoveries thus suggest…the now generally accepted conclusion that the universe of space and time had a beginning in the finite past.”  My essay “The Prints are Everywhere,”[8] in broad strokes lays out the evolution of that ongoing expansion of the cosmos from its beginning as a “zero-volume singularity” all the way up through its present size and state.  Images of the progression of this natural development have been fully documented.  Consequently, even though NO humans lived back at the beginning (which would enable them to personally view the creation of the universe) it is entirely wrong for young-earth creationists to suggest that we therefore have no access to actual knowledge of either the creation or the characteristics of the early universe.  The fact that scientists to the contrary are able to observe the entirety of cosmic history utterly contradicts this LCMS belief that we have no such knowledge. 


[1] The simple reason is that the word “and” points to a referent in the prior story line itself. See my essay, “The Biblical Demand to Take another Look: Ten exegetical Reasons the Creation Days of Genesis are Non 24-Hour,” sec. II.  It can be accessed at my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com.
[2] That 1:2 in Hebrew begins with “and,” marks it as a continuation of the narrative begun in 1:1. Further, 1:2 assumes the prior existence of the earth.
[3] At the N.W. District conv. of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (June, 1964), the late LCMS professor Dr. Paul Zimmermann stated that if Gen. 1:2 “lies outside the limits of the first day and indicates a preliminary activity, then certainly a great amount of time could be included in this verse” (bold-face mine). Bible Science Newsletter. (Caldwell Idaho).  ** Also, Zimmerman, ed. Darwin, Evolution, and Creation. (Concordia, 1959), pp. 47, 161, 165).
[4] I make the case that the six “creation days” are eras as opposed to 24-hour-days in my essay, “The Biblical Demand.” Op.cit. (2).
[5] By contrast, LCMS talk show host Todd Wilkin asserts that on Day 1, the sky would have appeared as a “blank screen” (www.issuesetc.org, 7-11-07).
[6] Hebrew verbs differ from English in that the former conveys the completion/non completion of events as opposed to the English past, present, or future.  When readers encounter words such as “and God made” in creation Day Four, for example, they imply “had already made” (referring back to Gen. 1:1) as opposed to “made that very moment” (simple past tense).   Furthermore, the verbs that are employed in creation Day Four (haya, yehee, asah), meaning variously “make,” or “cause to appear,”) are weaker than the word bara (meaning “created by God out of nothing”) as in Gen. 1:1.
[7] Because individual galaxies that are within the same cluster are gravitationally attracted to each other, they stand as an exception to this principle.  The clusters as a whole on the other hand, are flying away from each other, and with it the very fabric of the cosmos. Hence the universe is expanding.
[8] See my papers, “The Prints are Everywhere,” and “Was the Big Bang the Big Beginning?” at my website. Op.cit. (2).

Sunday, July 19, 2020

Merriam-Webster's Attempt to De-Racist-ify Blacks by Redefinition, part 2

And [God] made from one every nation of people to live on all the face of the earth…” (The Apostle Paul at  Athens)


The interchange which begins this paper effectively seeks to overthrow a critical component for constructing our Constitution, which is the biblical doctrine of sin.  It is beyond debate, for example, that the separation of powers into three branches of government is grounded on the view that all people everywhere are all sinners.  Yet both Mitchum and Skolowsky would effectively (not intentionally) ground society into the racist posture that blacks are, by definition, free from racial inclinations, while whites by contrast are the sole source of societal racial maladies by their very essence.  The prospect of where this absurdly naïve view of humanity will eventually lead, is horrifying to ponder.
In addition, when Skolowski said, “omitting any mention of the systematic aspects of racism pro-motes a certain viewpoint itself,” he overlooked the fact that his view cuts both ways.  By seeking to elevate “systematic racism” to the highest rank, both persons in actuality destroy dialogue by singling whites out as morally inferior.  By contrast biblical anthropology views each and every person as both created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26, Acts 17:26, above) and at the same time, fellow participants in sin (Romans 5:12).  It must even further be stated that this second point rests NOT solely on biblical dogma, but also on rational observation.  Finally, Skolowski failed in his determination to focus “on reflecting the real world usage of the world by doing the exact opposite; and that in two ways.  Firstly he snubbed half the populace solely to placate a minority view.  Secondly, he dismissed a self-evidently valid definition that rightly ranked number 1 up to now.  In so doing he violated the rational principle that abstract definitions should precede pragmatic ones which are alleged to follow from the former.

Saturday, July 18, 2020

Merriam-Webster Attempt to De-Racist-ify Blacks by Re-Definition, part 1


And [God] made from one every nation of people to live on all the face of the earth…” (St. Paul at Athens in Acts 17:26).

               Merriam-Webster Dictionary (MWD) recently received a letter by a Kennedy Mitchum, objecting that the dictionary definition of “racism” needs to be expanded to include a systematic aspect because, as she said, “prejudice combined with social and institutional power…is a system of advantage based on skin color.[2]  She also recalled examples from her own experiences, stating for example that at Drake University she faced “microaggressions [because] she was surrounded by so many white people who didn’t acknowledge her presence [and] questioned her ability.”  Some even “disagreed” with her.[3]

In reply, Editor at Large Peter Skolowski said in an interview that they are now working to revise the entry which, at present, defines racism as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”[4]  He further said, “this entry has not been revised in decades…While our focus will…be on reflecting the real world usage of the world and not on promoting any particular viewpoint, we have concluded that omitting any mention of the systematic aspects of racism promotes a certain viewpoint itself.”[5]

For several reasons, I find specifics of the above account to be deeply problematic to any agenda seeking to resolve racism.  Firstly, Kennedy both assumed the motives of her classmates and attacked their moral character and intellectual acuity; neither of which she confirmed.  Virtually all people at times have experiences similar to the apparent snubs she calls “microaggressions” (MA).  Secondly, she inadvertently applied the same systematic methods that she claims to decry, by depriving whites (solely because of their color) of the dignity of either being heard or engaging with her in challenges which, in the name of fairness, can only be discussed on a level playing field.  To the extent that she discourages such conversations, she is committing the fallacy, begging the question.  Thirdly, besides omitting valid specific examples, neither she nor the MWD editor gave definition to the term “systematic” they employ in this context, nor provide criteria by which to discern whether or not a given setting involves a syste-matic aspect.  Fourthly, she quite apparently elevates her preferred redefinition, not merely to fill her desired meaning with greater depth, but to effectively discount altogether the original view (above), thereby muffling whites completely.  Fifthly, while she chided whites for defining racism by “scissors-and-paste[6] methods, both she and Skolowski employ equivocation in their verbiage in such a way as to entrench a wholesale dismissal of white perceptions.  The logic of this ploy implies that because blacks were both victims in the past, and allegedly are to this day beaten down by systematic racism, then, according to the anticipated redefinition, blacks cannot be racist.  By stark contrast, whites by that same logic, are actual perpetrators of systematic racist oppression.  This perceptual straight-jacket conveys a notion hauntingly similar to Nazis attaching a yellow star onto Jewish clothing under the Third-Reich.

Notice by contrast then the words of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence which begin, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal.  Now any careful student of history knows that he, and certain other founders of our nation, held slaves; a reality which ignites an understandable sense of shock today.  Nevertheless what should be found still more shocking (in a positive sense) is NOT that Jefferson failed to live up to his own words, but that he nonetheless allowed them to stand in spite of failing to keep them.  My larger point is that, although slavery would not be ended until 80 years later when the Union militia defeated the Confederate militia in the Civil War, neither our Declaration of Independence nor our Constitution ever enshrined or celebrated slavery in any way at all.  Yet the challenge of putting our nation together at its founding was, in reality, a very messy matter.  The high level of cooperation required between anti- and pro-slavery colonies was, in fact, beyond reach should the founders have attempted at its very beginning to abolish slavery.  It was only by compromise that the level of unity absolutely required to achieve a United States could possibly come into existence consisting back then, as also now, of very imperfect people. 

To be continued...

Sunday, July 12, 2020

The Plethora of Leftist "Phobias"


Therefore you have no excuse…when you judge [others], for in passing judgment on [them] you do the same things (Romans 2:1)

               A “phobia” is officially defined as “a type of anxiety disorder. It is a strong, irrational fear of something that poses little or no actual danger.”[1]  There is no doubt that phobias by this definition commonly exist, even among people who, otherwise, live relatively normal lives.  For this reason it is helpful for each of us to assess whether certain of our own fears actually accord with reality.  For example, even though I acknowledge that a fall from the “chain zone” on the official hike to the top of Angel’s Landing in Zion National Park would be fatal, I was able with pleasure to reach the top by persuading myself that calmly holding firmly to that chain would ensure my safe success (I grant that I also was encouraged by others along the trail).  On the other hand, I was actually revulsed this morning by a photo of a hiker standing, without handhold or barrier, at a precipice dropping 3,000’ into Yosemite Valley at Taft Point.  I was in this case seized by phobic fear.
          Yet the above is NOT the definition that leftists bother to employ when they habitually lob the charge of “phobic” at conservatives.  For example, Harry Potter writer J.K. Rowling, who has no conservative leanings at all as far as I can tell, just a few days ago was accused of “transphopia” for expressing her expectation of safe spaces for women.  It is vital to note here that Rowling was never challenging the authenticity of the experiences that transgenders express…which is consistent with my views of transgender people even though I am a bonafide conservative.  My point here is that leftism expresses no desire to define phobias with intellectual care.  Since they apparently define a phobia as slight dissent of the “standard” line, I consider that I am entitled to list areas in which leftists betray their own phobias when defined according to their own standards.  Leftists of all stripes are thereby (cited in alphabetical order):

·        Accountabilophobic
·        Authoratophobic
·        Bibliophobic
·        Capitolistophobic
·        Christophobic
·        Competitiophobic
·        Conservatophobic
·        Cooperaphobic
·        Criticalthinkophobia
·        Curiositophobia
·        Dialogophobic
·        Factofobic
·        Foxophobic
·        Happiophobic
·        Heterophobic
·        Honestophobic
·        Humblaphobic 
·        Imperfectophobic
·        Investigatiophobic
·        Joyophobic
·        Libertiphobic
·        Lovaphobic
·        Mercilophobic
·        Meritophobic
·        Moraliphobic
·        Ratiophobic
·        Repentophobic (check meaning of “repent”)
·        Salvatiophobic
·        Thankfulophobic
·        Theophobic
·        Tolorophobic
·        Truthophobic











Saturday, July 11, 2020

Our Perversely Pervasive Neglect of Persuasion, part 3


We cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against God and bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.”      (2 Corinthians 10:5)



It is not within the scope of this essay to bolster my ideas with specific facts here, though I have composed numerous other articles which address that purpose.  My first proposal then is for secularist assumptions to be confronted whenever they commit logical fallacies.  For example, notice how they commit the double-standard fallacy in terms of 1) morality, by denying it as a binding standard for themselves, while imposing imperatives onto others, 2) tolerance, by their demanding it of others while at the same time they refuse to tolerate the latter’s views, and 3) science, by touting their own commit-ment to science, even though they refuse to yield to the genetic and the blood-type indicators which prove that the fetus who is in the womb is a person independent of the mother, and secondly, they ignore the genetic code (DNA) and the anatomical structure of transgender persons and the bearing of those facts on gender identity, specifically with respect to accessing appropriate shower facilities.
Second, elevate the critical connection between both the largely successful free society that we enjoy, and the brilliant vision by our founding fathers that is laid out in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Even further, I urge elevating that these documents alone have the capacity to enhance liberty for all in the face of the biblical truism that ALL people are sinners.  In addition, highlight the intellectual incongruity of any notion that the liberties we ALL enjoy will be advanced in any way by the anarchist challenge that is now confronting us.   
Third, illuminate the sharp contrast in visions between the two political parties by highlighting in no uncertain terms the failure of the Democrat party to defend either the citizens of our country or the Constitution itself.  We are in a life-or-death battle with respect to the immediate future, similar to what Moses stated at the end of his life:
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.  Therefore choose life that you and your offspring may live, loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him.   (Deuteronomy 30:19-20)
Given the present intellectual deterioration of our culture in the present, it is foolish to imagine that the cultural indicators which ushered Donald Trump into the first term of his Presidency will issue in a similar outcome this coming Fall.  It is similarly naïve to believe that Christian revival will ever come about in the neglect of evidential truth.  In either case, the Holy Spirit who leads people into truth (John 16:13), employs truth in all its facets precisely in order to bring His positive transformation about.