Thinking Christian

He said a naughty word:

Watch all the way to the end.

Hat tip: Challies

Share This

My post on “The Evolutionists’ Otherwise Practical Promiscuity” stirred up a firestorm, which is no different than I expected. What surprises me is how hard it is for some people to see reality. Maybe I over-complicated it.

My thesis was in the first sentence: “Evolution—the naturalistic kind—is dangerous.” In support of that I referred to a blog piece by evolutionary psychologist Jesse Bering on the moral implications of evolution. (He did not use the word “naturalistic” but it’s clear from the context that was what he meant. For the remainder of this post, when I speak of evolution I am specifically referring to naturalistic evolution.) I went on to discuss what it was about evolution that made it dangerous. Maybe instead I should have just trotted out the clear prima facie evidence.

We can discuss all week whether evolution entails moral nihilism, or whether evolutionists generally adopt that view. The fact remains that Bering could “get on board with this” intellectually:

There’s a strange whiff in the media air, a sort of polyamory chic in which liberally minded journalists, an aggregate mass of antireligious pundits and even scientists themselves have begun encouraging readers and viewers to use evolutionary theory to revisit and revise their sexual attitudes and, more importantly, their behaviors in ways that fit their animal libidos more happily.

Much of this discussion is being fueled by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá’s scintillating new book Sex at Dawn, which explores how our modern, God-ridden, puritanical society conflicts with our species’ evolutionary design, a tension making us pathologically ashamed of sex. There are of course many important caveats, but the basic logic is that, because human beings are not naturally monogamous but rather have been explicitly designed by natural selection to seek out ‘extra-pair copulatory partners’—having sex with someone other than your partner or spouse for the replicating sake of one’s mindless genes—then suppressing these deep mammalian instincts is futile and,

He can believe, based on his evolutionary suppositions,

that we live in a natural rather than a supernatural world, then there is no inherent, divinely inspired reason to be sexually exclusive to one’s partner. If you and your partner want to … [multiple suggested acts, omitted for reasons of decency] … then by all means do so (and take pictures). … Right is irrelevant. There is only what works and what doesn’t work, within context, in biologically adaptive terms….

He can tell the world that there’s nothing holding us back from this except that evolution has placed within us a restraining empathy response. I won’t take time here to draw out the weaknesses of Bering’s position on that, but I did address it in my last post, and I have more to come soon on the same.

He can get a hearing for his virtually pornographic promulgations through a highly regarded science magazine—because it is, he insists, a scientifically based viewpoint.

So one result of naturalistic evolution is that books like Sex at Dawn get scientific endorsement: cautious endorsement, perhaps, but supportive nonetheless; and “liberally minded journalists, an aggregate mass of antireligious pundits and even scientists themselves have begun encouraging readers and viewers to use evolutionary theory to revisit and revise their sexual attitudes and, more importantly, their behaviors in ways that fit their animal libidos more happily.”

It may not be every evolutionist who says this, but it’s not on the bare periphery, either. It’s at SciAm’s website this week. It’s at Princeton, by way of Singer’s influential (and evolutionary-based) opinions on infanticide and “speciesism.”

That’s dangerous. The thesis is demonstrated.

I know what the first objection to this will be: “Christianity is dangerous, too!” It certainly is. Much evil has been done in its name. The question in the case of both evolution and Christianity is whether their evils fit within them, or whether evil has co-opted them by distorting their true nature. It could be that overthrowing morality is really foreign to evolutionary theory. It could be that violent heresy-hunting is foreign to Christianity. If you have thoughts on that, there will be a thread coming soon to discuss it. (Which means that if you say something about it here, I’ll save my response for the coming blog post.)

So I stand firm on my belief that naturalistic evolution is dangerous. The facts speak for themselves.

Share This

This morning someone sent me a link to “Christians in Academe: A Reply,” in which Adam Kotsko calls on conservative evangelicals to abandon our siege mentality in the academy. I think that’s a great idea. I’m all for it. Wouldn’t it help, though, if people like John Horgan (not to mention Scientific American) would quit lobbing ignorant ordnance in our direction?

Share This

Kenneth P. Green and Hiwa Alaghebandian analyze the authoritarian turn science has taken since the early 1990s and conclude,

If science wants to redeem itself and regain its place with the public’s affection, scientists need to come out every time some politician says, “The science says we must…” and reply, “Science only tells us what is. It does not, and can never tell us what we should or must do.” If they say that often enough, and loudly enough, they might be able to reclaim the mantle of objectivity that they’ve given up over the last 40 years by letting themselves become the regulatory state’s ultimate appeal to authority.

[From Science Turns Authoritarian — The American, A Magazine of Ideas]

Three years ago in “Servants of a Twisted God,” I noted the priestly and idolatrous character science was taking on, and observed,

Yet if scientists are still our priests of the god of knowledge, priests ought to be pure and chaste. Their purpose is to speak for their god, to represent him (or it) disinterestedly and accurately. When priests seek other goals—especially power—their authority soon dissolves….

[Matthew] Nisbet and [Chris] Mooney would have scientists do more of this: to present persuasive arguments rather than pure science. They want scientists to spend less energy on telling the public the full truth, and more on being politically effective. They are encouraging scientists to follow the fatal path that too many clergy took in the past: to become priests of power, servants of a twisted god.

Green and Alaghebandian see the same thing continuing to happen:

While nobody would dispute the value of a good PR department, we doubted that bad or insufficient PR was the primary reason for the public’s declining trust in scientific pronouncements. Our theory is that science is not losing its credibility because people no longer like or believe in the idea of scientific discovery, but because science has taken on an authoritarian tone, and has let itself be co-opted by pressure groups who want the government to force people to change their behavior.

I predicted in 2007,

The public will lose its religion over this.

Though these authors do not employ the same metaphor, they certainly seem to agree.

Also posted at First Things: Evangel

Share This

My Open Letter to the Apologetics Community drew a predictable reaction from some who doubt that evangelical Christianity could ever stand on intellectual high ground. Nick Matzke in particular said in comments there,

It’s gonna be tough to overcome Christian anti-intellectualism as long as you think that things like Noah’s Flood and humans descending from a single specially created pair are reasonable ideas….

Gee, I thought intellectualism had something to do with following the truth wherever it leads. But you are just unwilling to do it in the cases I mentioned, and similar issues, as is much of conservative evangelicalism. Not only do they disagree with the overwhelming and basically simple physical evidence, they often make a huge public stink about it, and try and get their pseudoscience into the public schools. If you want to know why many think that conservative evangelicals are anti-intellectual, there’s one huge reason, and no one will have any good reason to think otherwise until evangelicals change their tune on this.

Nick is doing advanced work in biology at an excellent university. He’s an intelligent man. Nevertheless he is wrong to say that the question of intellectual presence revolves around one belief on one point. Now, I would not call him anti-intellectual just for that. One ill-advised position does not make a person globally “anti-intellectual.” Yet on that very point we seem to disagree, for he makes it clear that anti-intellectualism can indeed be an all-or-nothing thing, based on how one issue: how views origins. “You think YEC is credible?” he asks. “Bam. There goes your credibility with the wider intellectual culture.”

What does it mean to be anti-intellectual, anyway? It’s not the same as not intellectual, as in the case of those who lack capacity for scholarly pursuits.  It’s also not about whether one knows a lot. Less apt or educated persons could be pro-intellectual, just as I’m in favor of excellent architecture or baseball-playing, neither of which are my strengths. It’s not just about being wrong; all the greatest thinkers have been wrong about some things—especially the scientists. No, to be anti-intellectual is to be opposed to things such as learning, study, and knowledge, taken broadly and deeply. (I’m intentionally avoiding the term intellectualism, by the way. It’s not a simple antonym to anti-intellectualism, it’s freighted with other connotations, and it’s not the topic here.)

So suppose there’s a Christian believer who thinks it credible to thing there was an original created couple (Adam and Eve). What is it about that position that signals opposition to study or to knowledge? Nick seems to think that just to consider anything outside the evolutionary party line a “reasonable idea” is to reject all reason. But that translates to, “If I’m to be a thinking person then I must think only what the authorities tell me to think.” That won’t fly.

Nick uses the phrase “they disagree with … the evidence.” It sounds as if thinks the evidence could speak without thoughtful persons interpreting it. I wonder if that was a matter of careless wording, or if he really thinks that. To consider God’s specially creating an original pair isn’t disagreeing with evidence, because this evidence isn’t of the class of thing that one could disagree with. It’s not necessarily rejecting evidence, either. It is (or at least it could be) holding a different view on that evidence, such as,

• I’m not a specialist in this field, so it would be irresponsible for me to take a firm position on what the evidence means, or
• I see the evidence and the force of it, but I also see conflicting evidence in philosophy, nature, and/or God’s word, which I don’t think “the authorities” have fully accounted for. Therefore I cannot accept their word as final.

Which of those is opposed to study or knowledge?

Nick also says “Gee, I thought intellectualism had something to do with following the truth wherever it leads.” That definition is far too loose (“something to do with”). Better to turn it over: “Refusal to follow the truth wherever it leads is a sign of anti-intellectualism.” But it’s only a sign, it’s not the whole story. I’m not committed to following every single truth to its ultimate destination. I’m not worried about chasing down the Bacon-Marlowe controversy until it’s been settled. For reasons already stated, I’m also not committed to taking the authorities’ word that science (whatever that is) has landed upon the final truth on origins. That would be a counter-intellectual move.

What then about “conservative evangelicalism” making “a huge public stink about it” in the public schools? Apparently for Nick, conservative evangelicalism is defined as those Christians who are making a huge public stink about this. Actually, most conservative believers pay evolution no attention whatever, and of those who do, only a few are trying to influence public policy. Of that group, even fewer are being stinky about it. So it’s not “conservative evangelicalism” making the stink he thinks he smells. Or if it is, then by his definition I’m not a member of conservative evangelicalism. Some Christians do raise a stink, admittedly, but though they are very visible they are also relatively few. Even if they were bastions of blithe stupidity (which would be true for an even smaller subset), that would not make the real body of conservative evangelicalism anti-intellectual. (NIck says later in that paragraph that evangelicals “need to change their tune on this.” If those evangelicals to whom he is referring did that, I doubt he would notice any more than he has taken notice that the Discovery Institute isn’t trying to get evolution removed from school curricula.)

Later in the discussion Nick tries to moderate his position:

People who believe in YEC deliberately (rather than being raised in it) have decided to ignore the physical evidence and believe their particular reading of Genesis, evidence be damned. And that’s anti-intellectualism.

It might be instead the ability to consider contrary evidence, coupled with an informed decision to weight it differently. I’m not a specialist in this field, so maybe I’m wrong, but I think that might be healthy openness—even if it’s wrong; for wrong ≠ anti-intellectual.

This I do know. Nick has chosen (he was presumably not raised in it) to make one issue an absolute arbiter of anti-intellectualism. If all it takes is clinging stubbornly to an indefensible position to qualify as anti-intellectual, well, feel free to regard this tu quoque as intentional. Nick, you’re doing exactly the kind of thing you say makes a person anti-intellectual. But that’s Nick’s approach, not mine. I wouldn’t apply the term “anti-intellectual” to him globally, as if it were true of his whole person—even though he thinks it can be applied globally not only to individuals but to all of evangelical Christianity. I do not say that Nick is anti-intellectual. I do say, however, that this particular erroneous position of Nick’s is anti-intellectual, in that it is narrow, scientistic, parochial, and wrong—on the very topic of anti-intellectualism.

What difference does this make in the end? Does it matter that Nick Matzke thinks evangelical Christianity is tarred with anti-intellectualism on his narrow basis? Only in that it represents part of the problem of Christian anti-intellectualism, with which I started this whole discussion in the open letter. You can find real scholarship in the church. If you look elsewhere among Christians you can find anti-intellectualism. Somewhere off on a tangent you can also find a distorted picture of alleged Christian anti-intellectualism, such as Nick’s version here, which is a problem of an entirely different sort. Christians won’t regain the high ground by acquiescing thoughtlessly to the ruling authorities. Our intellectual future is bound up in much, much more than the creation/ID/evolution question. The last thing we want to do is accept intellectual rules like Nick’s, because the game they define is at best a tiny piece of what matters. We have much larger work to do than that.

Share This

… even I can see that this Slate author hasn’t done his “grade-school” homework on Thomas Aquinas.

And so atheists really exist on the same superstitious plane as Thomas Aquinas, who tried to prove by logic the possibility of creation “ex nihilo” (from nothing). His eventual explanation entailed a Supreme Being standing outside of time and space somehow endowing it with existence (and interfering once in a while) without explaining what caused this source of “uncaused causation” to be created in the first place.

This is—or should be—grade-school stuff, but many of the New Atheists seemed to have stopped thinking since their early grade-school science-fair triumphs.

[From The rise of the new agnostics. - By Ron Rosenbaum - Slate Magazine]

Need I spell out the problems here? Or are they too grade-school obvious?

The most difficult thing about it all is figuring out how he could get anyone to publish it.

More interesting yet is the way Rosenbaum closes out the piece. It’s quite consistent with the theme of the whole:

Wilkins’ suggestion is that there are really two claims agnosticism is concerned with is important: Whether God exists or not is one. Whether we can know the answer is another. Agnosticism is not for the simple-minded and is not as congenial as atheism and theism are.

The courage to admit we don’t know and may never know what we don’t know is more difficult than saying, sure, we know.

As Errol Morris put it in the conclusion of one his epic multipart New York Times examination of anosognosia—not knowing what we don’t know:

We have “the desire but not the wherewithal to make sense of experience. One might easily forsee that this would lead to unending unmitigated frustration and suffering. But here’s where self-deception [and] anosognosia … step in. We wouldn’t be able to make sense of anything, but we would never be aware of that fact.”

Like I said, it’s complicated. But the world has suffered enough from oversimplifications. The agnostic moment has come.

Theism and atheism are both for the simple-minded, he thinks. I won’t defend or even comment on atheism in that respect. But I’ll note that Rosenbaum has provided further evidence he’s never read Aquinas. Or Calvin, or Augustine, or maybe even Lewis. Nor does it seem likely he has spent much time in any decent theological library.

And theism is for the weak-willed, too, he says. That would come as quite a surprise to a lot of Christians.

Share This

The Scientific American piece ends,

Is it possible that some future genius will discover an alternative that supplants Darwinism as our framework for understanding life? Will we ever look back on Darwin as brilliant but wrong?

Is it a crack in the Darwinist monolith? Maybe. But not, alas, much of a nod in the direction of Intelligent Design. It begins,

Last year, on the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species, Darwin’s stock soared higher than Apple’s. It’s 2010—time for a market adjustment.

The philosopher Daniel Dennett once called the theory of evolution by natural selection “the single best idea anyone has ever had.” I’m inclined to agree. But Darwinism sticks in the craw of some really smart people. I don’t mean intelligent-designers (aka IDiots) and other religious ignorami but knowledgeable scientists and scholars.

SciAm still can’t say “religious” without adding something like “ignorami.” Too bad for them, I’m afraid.

Share This