As the dead do not know the living, or even that they themselves are dead, so too irrationality does not know rationality.

Augustine argued that evil was not a ‘thing-in-itself’ but always some good thing that has been corrupted.  Evil is a direction away from good.  I think he is right about that and I know now that there are many examples of the same principle.  Rationality and Irrationality are one example.  The Living and the Dead, another.  Morality and Immorality yet one more.  I’m sure there are others, and now that I am more alert to the principle I’ll keep my eye out for them.

But it does raise interesting questions:  if the dead do not know they are dead how are you to proceed if you are a live person in the business of raising the dead?

In order to better get a sense of my overall picture of things, you might (after reading the story below) want to read my short story titled, to your surprise no doubt, “Mother Teresa Goes to Heaven.”

Antony Flew Goes to Heaven

When the man opened his eyes the first thing he beheld was a garden.  It was the assault on his being that alerted him to this fact.  His sensory scouts went out and scoured his surroundings and came back with the report- first from the nostrils:  here were delicate scents of flowers and dirt; and then the eyes: there were well ordered paths with ivy crawling up rocky walls; now touch:  he realized he was lying on his back with blades of grass tickling his ear and when he flexed his fingers into the earth there was that soft moistness you always associated with good soil;  the ears came announcing:  birds here, birds there, birds everywhere, and somewhere yet unspotted a fountain, detected by alternating gurgles and tinkling; taste came back disappointed, as it had nothing yet to disclose.

It was comforted soon enough.  The man sat up and saw at once the hanging branches of a fruit-laden tree.  While feeling no pangs of hunger he knew he was famished.  He stood up and strode with purpose to the tree and helped himself liberally.  In his subconscious a fear flickered that he may be plucking his lunch from Augustine’s orchard.  He set the fear aside and ate his fill.

He returned to the patch of soft grass that he had been lying when he had first awoken.  There seemed nothing else to do.  So he sat.  It was the cool of the day and he was content enough to enjoy the tender breeze that played on his cheeks.  That breeze, the man couldn’t help but think, seemed to be made just for him each and every time.  It was the cool of the day, and suddenly the man knew that he was not alone.

“Alo there!” called out a man from one of the previously surveyed walking paths.

Our man stood up startled.  Even as he knew the man had no ill intentions towards him he could not help feel a little awkward.  He struggled to put it into words.  It would not have surprised him if that very moment this man declared he was Augustine after all, come upon a trespasser.  And he was the one trespassing.   Even Augustine’s welcoming cry assured him that he was there invited would not displace the awkward feeling that he had imposed himself somewhere he didn’t belong.  That is about how he felt as the man drew closer.

“Happy to meet you,” declared the new man to the old man.  “May I have your name?”

“Tony, I think.  I have a little trouble with names…” Tony was sheepish.

“No worries, dear sir,” the man comforted him.  In respect for Tony’s nervousness, the man halted his approach about ten feet off.  He was wearing a beige button down shirt with dirt stains on it and his hands were stuffed into loose fitting blue jeans that were likewise stained.  There the hands remained, safe.  There was no chance that the man could get his hands out of those pockets and around Tony’s neck without Tony having a chance to protect himself.  So Tony reasoned, and so apparently the man deduced.

“I’m sorry that I’ve trespassed in your garden, sir.  To be honest I don’t quite know how I’ve gotten here.  I have some recollection of falling into a deep sleep- where I do not recall- and when I opened my eyes, I was here,” Tony apologized.

“You needn’t be so concerned about it,” the man smiled.  “After all,” said he, “what makes you think this is a garden at all, let alone one that is mine?”

“Oh well, that is an interesting question, now that you ask it!” Tony smiled.

“And how do you answer it?” the man smiled back.

“I suppose I leapt to a conclusion, didn’t I?” Tony began thinking aloud.

“In what way?” the man coaxed.

“Well, this brick wall here with ivy all the way up.  I suppose if one allows that there is enough time and enough opportunity it is inevitable that the forces of nature will churn out a rock wall, somewhere.”

“And the fountain over yonder?” the man inquired, cocking his head in the direction of the previously undetected fountain.

Tony turned his gaze in that direction.  Indeed, about thirty yards away, largely tucked away behind a bend in the path but visible when the breeze pushed aside the large leaves that concealed it, was a fountain.  The breeze seemed to rise up for the task and Tony had a good look at it.  A perfectly round and very large basin held what Tony knew without knowing why he knew was the fiercest cherubim he’d ever seen.  Water poured out of an elegant vase that the angel was holding and fell into the basin.  Where it went after that, Tony couldn’t tell.

“I suppose that settles it, then,” said Tony.

“Settled it how?” the man asked.

“Obviously an artifact and something outside the natural order.  We must be in a garden,” Tony reasoned.

“But what about your latent assumption a moment ago?  Why shouldn’t the forces of nature be as likely to finally spit out an angelic water fountain as a vertical wall with interlocking rocks?” the man probed.

“Alright, but then we must account for the many walking paths and the fruit trees and all of the flowers so obviously arranged…”

“Surely none of these can be more difficult for nature to achieve, given enough time, then the fountain?” the man winked.

“Well, now.  Given enough time.  I suppose the presumption ought to be that purposeless forces could have done all this…”  That is what Tony said, but he was not convinced.

“You don’t sound very confident,” the man asked, his eyes twinkling.

“Well, you make a good point and one that more or less I’ve adhered to in my life.  But a fountain?  And you dismissed the walking paths quick enough but did you see the flower boxes that border them?”

“But given enough time…”

“Yes, of course.  Given enough time, what we might at first glance declare as obviously designed, we can just as well conclude that it is only apparently designed.”

But Tony was still uncertain.  He couldn’t put his finger on what was troubling him.  He began to wonder too if it were a trap:  here he had found himself in this lovely man’s lovely garden and the man was trying to trick him into saying something insulting in order to justify expulsion.

The man intervened.

“What if,” the man suggested, “we supposed that there was a gardener?  That might help cinch it, no?”

“Well, yes, of course.  If there was a gardener, indeed, that should change things quite a bit.”

“Then let us sit down here in the grass and wait and see if one comes upon us,” the man proposed.

“Yes, let’s.”

Tony sat down and watched out of the corner of his eye as the man sat down, too.  The man seemed very much at ease with the situation.  He was leaning back, with his arms splayed out behind him and his palms flush to the earth to support him.  His legs were extended and the feet clicked together rhythmically.

They waited.

They waited some more.

“How long shall we wait?” asked the man.

“Well, I don’t know.  Perhaps the gardener is out of town or away on business,” Tony submitted.

“That is a charitable possibility.  I thought perhaps you were going to propose that maybe he was invisible, intangible, and eternally elusive,” the man rejoined with a soft laugh.

“If it weren’t for the wall, the walking path, and the fountain, perhaps I would be forced into such a scenario…”

“So it would seem,” said the man, “that Strato does not have the strength to supplant common intuition.”

Tony reluctantly agreed, “So it would seem.”

“Haven’t you a wonder where that intuition comes from and how it can be trusted?” the man ventured.

“I do, and have.  I doubt that ‘common intuition,’ as you call it, can be put at the same level as rigorous investigation,” Tony mused.

“Yet if I am not mistaken, you are here submitting quickly and easily to that intuition and it is standing in the way of investigation.  Perhaps the inference you are drawing should not be faulted simply because it comes easily and effortlessly?”

“That is a funny way of putting it, but I can’t find a way to object.  It has always been my goal, as a matter of personal integrity, to follow the evidence, wherever it goes.  You’re right.  This inference came easily enough.  I suppose one might say that mine is an argument from incredulity- an inability to see how, practically speaking, something as exquisite as that-” and here Tony broke off momentarily to throw a glance at the glorious yet menacing cherubim as if to make sure it had not moved, “- fountain could come about no matter how much time was allotted.  But to be honest, it would seem that the alternative would be an argument from credulity.  That is, the very opposite of skepticism.  You’d practically have to be a sucker to buy the line that these things came about by accident.”

“But surely you concede it is very much a logical possibility that blind natural forces operating without purpose could have created such a thing?” the man pressed.

“Yes, of course.  That is what I’m saying, I think.  It is a logical possibility, but logical possibilities do not trump evidence in hand.”

“That seems to be at variance with your previous position… the notion that one ought to bring a presumption of a certain sort to the table.  Perhaps the correct presumption is to make no presumption one way or the other and wait for the evidence?”

Tony nodded.  “That strikes me as eminently reasonable at this juncture in my life.”

The two fell into silence.  At one point, they had been still for so long that the birds which had been flittering about in the treetops alighted on the grass in front of them en masse.  Then regrettably Tony twitched and they flew off.  The cool of the day seemed to go on and on, with no end.   As sentries they silently sat, waiting for the gardener that Tony knew existed somewhere.  The existence of the gardener was suddenly important to him.  His existence was justification of more than an argument but seemed also to prove his sanity- to himself.  There seemed something positively insane, or insanity-breeding, about this idea that there was some real category labeled, ‘The Apparently Designed.’

“If only the Gardener would just come and tell us everything directly!” Tony finally blurted out.

The man chuckled, bemused.

“I don’t see what is so funny about the proposition.  If the Gardener stood before us now he could explain it all.  Isn’t that quite an obvious solution to this conundrum?” Tony lashed out in frustration.

The man, reading the discontent in Tony’s voice, explained why he chuckled, “I was laughing ever so gently, my friend, because I was quite certain that you were quite convinced that revelatory systems were suspect.  But here you are telling me that when all the presumptions and evidence are put on the table, the thing that would ultimately settle it all is for the Maker of the Garden to announce himself.”

Tony was stung by the analysis.  It was true and he knew it was true.  Perhaps it was the freshness of the air or the vigor derived from his fruity feast of before, but he felt inside himself the strength to come to terms with being so exposed.

Without waiting for Tony to say anything further, the man continued, “If we are willing to be so charitable to allow that the Gardener could be out on business or may have some perfectly good reason for why he cannot directly appear at this moment, maybe we could begin by at least being open to hearing out those who have in times past declared that they come bearing a message from the Gardener?”

Tony nodded, but offered a small protest, “Yes, but it would still be ideal for the Gardener to present himself.”

“And as you consider all of those revelatory systems of the past, how many of them do you recall declared that the Gardener had done just that?”

“Just one, of course.  But I was not being philosophical.  I was being pragmatic and practical:  if only the Gardener would present himself right now, everything would be cleared up,” Tony clarified.

“Yes, if only.”

“At any rate, he’s done a first rate job with this bit of earth.  He might find it a bit silly (once we find him) that we demand he give an account of just how he has so constructed this little paradise.  I’d be content right now just to have the opportunity to commend him personally,” Tony sighed.

“What if I told you that I could take you to meet him?” the man asked, suddenly putting his hands in his lap as though poised for action.  Indeed, upon asking the question the man suddenly leapt to his feet.

“I should think you ought to have said a long while back that you knew him,” Tony scowled, taking a stubborn tone.

“Come,” said the man.

But Tony, his head turned away from the man, was resolute:  “I don’t wander about with strangers.  Come to think of it, I don’t think you’ve even given me your name.  I know I said I’d have trouble remembering it anyway, but it still seems a little rude not to have offered it.”

“I don’t think you’ll forget this name,” the man declared in a jovial yet solemn tenor.

Tony, still sitting, turned to look at the man more intently.  The man was standing just a few feet away, his hand outstretched, offering to help Tony to his feet.  Nothing seemed familiar about the man but he noticed right away that trees, flowers, and light could be seen through the man’s hands on account of the large holes that were in them about where the palm met the wrist.  A jolt went through Tony at that moment.  It was a realization, to be sure, and yet that wasn’t all of it.  His army was being called to surrender, right there in the plush and gentle woods.  Would he be treated well as a prisoner of war?  Couldn’t he fight on?  Could he suffer defeat?  Was there any point in retreat?

Still he sat, stewing in his warring sentiments.  Still the man stood with his wounded hands outstretched.

“Dearest Tony,” the Gardener tenderly inquired, “Will you?  Will you really?  Will you really follow the Evidence wherever He leads?”

I would like to give free-thinking objective and even handed and mentally superior atheistic friends an opportunity to exhibit integrity by highlighting the three examples (plus a bonus one) that come to mind and calling upon the atheists and their defenders to own up to these refutations.  If I had to make a prediction, it would be that they will exhibit all that they renounce in ‘religious fundamentalism’ and do essentially as Dan Rather did in Rathergate, standing by the story after the facts supporting it have been withdrawn.

1.  Richard Dawkins. Not long after Dawkins released his Delusion, I tracked down a quote that he employed to further his argument that Christianity was against knowledge and stifled curiosity.   The quote was from Augustine’s Confessions but the 45ish word quote was actually spliced selectively out of a longer section 750ish words in length.   See my evidence.

Dawkins’s crime here was not the fabrication but the wholesale adoption of the quote without checking it himself.  One can see why he wouldn’t, since it played so well into his conceptions.   To this day, people are running around the Internet citing this passage and thumping their chest about how anti-knowledge Christians are.  To their credit on account of my research, some atheists have backed off.  Others have pushed forward, convinced that the ‘underlying story’ is nonetheless true.

I hereby call upon Richard Dawkins to own up to this fabrication and in turn call upon his free thinking lackeys (aka, the ‘Brights’) to abandon this piece of fiction.

2.  Richard Carrier. About two years ago Antony Flew released his book explaining why he was no longer an atheist.  Richard aka “The Bloodhound” Carrier sent Flew a questionnaire to fill out and the net result was his accusation that Flew’s book was actually written by Christian apologists taking advantage of an old man to put words in his mouth.  The only problem with this is that yours truly had been in correspondence with Dr. Flew even before I knew there was a book coming out and in those letters Dr. Flew recounted for me various things that he believed.  Many of these showed up in his book.  In short, I have in my possession Dr. Flew’s handwritten letters that show numerous correspondences to the book.

This is prima facie evidence that the book substantially reflects the actual views of Dr. Flew.  I displayed this in a fairly long treatment here but I suggest you look at Richard Carrier’s article before you look at mine so that you can enjoy mine properly.

As far as I know, to this day, Carrier- who has been informed of my evidence (I informed him) – has not withdrawn his argument or even attempted to rebut it.  I am aware of a curt dismissal and no more.  In the meantime he’s continued on his merry way bashing the credibility of Flew’s book.

Richard Carrier:  man up.  Admit that you were wrong on this particular point.

3.  Dan Barker. Good ol’ Dan and his ‘Easter Challenge.’  You know this one:  The Bible isn’t true because you can’t harmonize the Resurrection accounts… in his rebuttal to a book attempting to do what Barker says is impossible, he makes the statement that Matthew 28:1-8 must be taken as a “discrete, unbreakable element” (because Barker says so).   Barker’s argument is that in these passages the disciples are instructed to immediately go to Galilee where Jesus will appear to them for the first time, but in contrast to the other Gospels, Jesus appears to the disciples immediately that day and the days right after that.

In my post, however, I point out the very elementary observation that Galilee was some 80 miles from Jerusalem and the disciples probably (I could be wrong) did not own a car.  As such, they’d have to do it on foot or at best on horse.  In sum, there is no way anybody knowledgeable about Palestinean geography (as we would imagine the disciples to be) to expect to arrive in Galilee that day or even the very next.

However, I am open to refutation on this point.  Thus, I reiterate my challenge to Dan Barker right now:  Dan, you live about the same distance from me as Jerusalem was from Galilee.  You have the benefits of good roads and well policed high ways.  Therefore, if you can set out on foot and arrive in my home area within two days, I shall withdraw my argument.  Also, I will treat you to dinner.

If however you fail to achieve this small thing, I call on you to revise your argument concerning Matthew’s use of time.  If you refuse to even make the attempt, I call upon you to cease employing this argument until you do.

Austin Cline. I must give Mr. Cline at least some credit.  In his post on Pontius Pilate at About Atheism, he asserts:  “Pontius Pilate was prefect (not procurator, as some sources say)” but that is not what he originally wrote.  What he originally wrote, which is still available in the Google intro to the page, was:  “Pontius Pilate was prefect (not procurator, as the gospels say)”.  This change was prompted by yours truly contacting Mr. Cline to inform him that the gospels say no such thing.  Not long after, Mr. Cline changed his site to reflect reality.

This might seem like a refreshing breath of integrity until I tell you that when I informed Mr. Cline, very cordially, of this fact, he responded by being a big fat jerk.  He persisted in this and I don’t know what prompted him to examine my contention.  Now, the change has been made, but I note that I never received any kind of acknowledgment (or apology) and that (more importantly) Mr. Cline refused to give the Gospels their due in having their facts right all along.  That would have been a nice addition to his Pontius Pilate entry, don’t you think?  But no, he simply cuts out his accusation and replaces it with unspecified ‘sources.’

I expect nothing of Mr. Cline here.  I add this to cap off the general lesson that I would like to draw here, as the four names I have listed here are prominent atheistic spokespersons:  atheists are not the vanguards of reason that they would like us to believe they are;  they make mistakes just like everyone else, and no one should think that they are above being too proud to admit it when they are.  These examples I have given are minor in the grand scheme of things but I submit that they illustrate why no one should ever defer thinking to anyone else, regardless of how smart they insist they are, how many degrees they have, how high their IQ is, or even if they currently represent the consensus position on a topic, be it evolution, global warming, climate change, etc, etc, etc, etc.

The intellectual elite which I have called out in this post answer to a higher standard and I hope that this post will elicit some acknowledgment that their arguments are not always as rock solid as they suggest.  I predict quite the opposite, so again:  remember in your skepticism to be skeptical too of the skeptics.

=======

Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge of Knowledge

“I got here as fast as I could!” gasped the old man.  He put one hand on the hood of the squad car and bent over as he tried to catch his breath.

The annoyed chief stared at the man waiting for him to explain who he was because the chief didn’t recognize him at all.  At last, the balding and sweating gentlemen stood erect and stared back at the chief expecting some word of thanks or gratitude from him.  But the chief was silent.

“Well, don’t you want my help?” the old man snapped.

“I don’t know who you are,” the chief grumped back.

“Don’t you know who you’ve got up there?” the old man gestured in the direction of the top of a seven story building that was the object of all the attention.

The chief shrugged, irritated, “Two people threatening to jump?”

The old man scowled.

“This is what I’ve been trying to tell you, chief,” said a police officer standing nearby.

“What?  Just tell me already!” the chief cried out, slapping his hand on the hood of the car.

“That’s Adam and Eve,” the old man snarled, “and I’m Dr. Stein Franken.”

“Good grief,” the chief exhaled.  “Give me those binoculars!”  Officer Todd handed them over and the chief gave a closer look to the man and the woman standing on the edge of the building.  “Good grief,” the chief said again, adding some profanity under his breath.

Dr. Franken put his hands on his hips and assumed a posture that had proven itself effective over the years.  “Now, tell me what’s going on?  How did those two get up there?”

“Well,” the chief began, “as near as I can tell, it began about an hour ago at the local book store.  These two had gone in and got themselves caught switching books in the mythology and science sections-”

“That’s not a crime,” Dr. Franken snapped.  “I myself take books out of the science section and put them in the mythology section where they belong.  I do that all of the time.”

“No, they were doing it the other way around,” said Officer Todd.

Dr. Franken gasped in shock, “Why, that’s a felony.”

“Exactly,” said the chief.

There was irony here but Dr. Franken didn’t realize it. It was specifically because of Dr. Franken’s scientific achievement that it had become a felony to place mythological books in the science section, though that wasn’t exactly how the law was framed.  More accurately, it had become illegal to present as factual and true that which was clearly mythological and ancient.  Dr. Franken’s creation of Adam and Eve had proven to the world that unguided evolution was indisputably true.  It had been said previously that those who denied it were ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked, but after Dr. Franken’s accomplishment, it was believed.  Legislation quickly followed to curtail the various forms of child abuse inherent in many, if not all, of the mythological systems.  How ironic that the impetus for that legislation had now been caught violating it!

All of this was lost on Dr. Franken, however.  What was on his mind was the potential embarrassment if his creation were thrown in prison.  After all, a great deal of psychological effort had gone into conditioning the two with the finest behavioral theories.  For them to have misfired so dramatically would certainly mean the loss of funding for someone.  For someone, but Dr. Franken would ensure that someone was not him.

Dr. Franken gazed out in space for awhile contemplating possible scenarios until it slowly dawned on him that there was a much more serious problem in front of him.  Adam and Eve had possibly committed a felony, yes, but that would pale in comparison to the fall out if they jumped to their deaths.  When he finally focused his mind on the problem at hand, Dr. Franken found that several others had joined them.  One of them was shaking his hand.

“Dr. Franken, good to meet you.  I’m Dr. Michael Hawkings.  I’m the police psychologist,” said the man.

“Yes, very good,” Dr. Franken replied automatically.

“And I’m Jessup Graves, in charge of the tactical team,” said the one named Jessup Graves.

“Tactical team?  What do you mean to do?” Dr. Franken lashed out suddenly.

“Relax.  We’ll only take action if we can’t talk them down,” Graves soothed.

“Take action?” Dr. Franken howled.  “Don’t you know who you’ve got up there?  What they represent?  Thousands of the world’s finest minds, equipped with tens of thousands of the most powerful computers, making use of the data crunching powers of millions of computers otherwise sitting idle in the homes of average citizens, combined with millions and millions of dollars of research funds… and an advisory team head up by the most esteemed scientists of this era- led by myself, of course- worked together to show once and for all that blind, dumb, unguided nature could create something as complex and sophisticated as the human being.  We did what no one else had done…”

Dr. Franken was on a roll and was not to be stopped.

He continued, “We created them from scratch.  Not from existing genetic material or from gene splicing or from stem cells of any kind.  We built them practically from dirt.  Oh sure, we made extensive use of amino acids and other ‘starter’ materials, but the point is that we showed conclusively that we could break a human down into all of its constituent parts and then re-assemble them.  Adam and Eve were the first.”

Graves was well practiced in calming down irate individuals but evidently hadn’t the experience required to relax scholars.  He said, a little too bluntly and not very delicately,  “I thought I read that you couldn’t just use a computer model of the human genome and had to use an actual sample to use as the template and you used some cells from your…”

Officer Todd snickered.

Dr. Franken blushed a deep red, “That was just a vicious rumor, a joke really.  Honestly, why would anyone want to use cells from their butt to create new humans?”

“To prove they could?” Dr. Hawkings offered.

Officer Todd snickered.

“It’s a lie, a bloody lie,” declared Dr. Franken.  His words did not persuade, however.  If there had been any doubt before that Adam and Eve had been fabricated in part from Dr. Franken’s ample rear end, it was removed now.

“Well, at any rate,” Dr. Hawkings added, “Didn’t you also spend millions and millions of dollars in psychological conditioning for these two?”

“Of course.  Since we literally knew what every little bit of a human consisted of, we knew what every gene did, what every possible mutation might do, and so on and so forth.  The reductionist programme was established as absolutely true and thoroughly reliable,” Dr. Franken huffed.

“I don’t want to belabor the obvious,” said the chief, “But it looks like something didn’t quite go right.”

“Indeed,” said Dr. Hawkings.

Dr. Franken didn’t reply.

“Well, let’s get to the part where you tell us how you can help us,” the chief suggested.

Dr. Hawkings interjected, “You might begin by telling us if anything out of the ordinary happened today.  Something that may have set them off, perhaps.”

Dr. Hawkings didn’t think much of mythology anymore then Dr. Franken did but there was one critical difference between the two men.  As a police psychologist, Dr. Hawkings had to deal with real live humans in crazy situations thinking crazy thoughts all of the time.  If the mind could so thoroughly be reduced to raw brain that theoretically you could change behavior by carefully throwing the right ‘switch,’ this knowledge hadn’t been made practically available yet to those who actually interacted with real people.  In his experience, ’cause and effect’ was as true in the brain as in a game of billiards.  This meant that there almost certainly had been a catalyst of some sort that set the two off but it also meant that Dr. Hawkings knew that tracing it, or understanding it if you could trace it, was often very difficult.  Nonetheless, good headway was often made in the attempt.

When Dr. Franken didn’t reply, Hawkings repeated, “So, did something happen to set them off?”

Dr. Franken stammered a bit and wiped his brow.

“You said you wanted to help us.  This is your chance,” the chief said.

“Uh, yes, see, well.  How to say it.  I didn’t think much of it.  Only, it seems that the rumor we alluded to before was a rumor that they had recently heard for themselves, and, I, well, we had a conversation about it where of course I denied it…”

Naturally, those who heard Dr. Franken’s explanation deduced immediately that Adam and Eve had concluded the same from Dr. Franken’s denials as they had.

“Alright,” said Dr. Hawkings, “Adam and Eve have learned that… or are under the impression, at least, that they were created from your butt.  One might suppose that they weren’t all that thrilled by that.  Maybe this explains it.”

“What are you implying?” Dr. Franken snarled.

“Not a thing.  I’m just trying to understand the mindset of our jumpers,” Hawkings retorted.

“Let’s say its true, the rumor.  So what?  Isn’t that what science is all about?  Curiosity?  Finding out if something can be done?  Knowledge just for the sake of knowledge?”

In Dr. Hawking’s mind he wanted to submit something about ethics, morality, and even common sense, but he knew better.  Such considerations had long been removed from the realm of the common man and put squarely into the hands of those alone who were competent to handle them- the scientists themselves.  He had no strong feelings opposed to this development but there did seem something a bit off about creating humans nearly from scratch but using one’s own butt cells as a template for the unguided, undirected, creation of those humans.  He certainly felt that if it had been him he wouldn’t have been happy.  Could he have put his finger on why?  Probably not.

Besides, it was all irrelevant.  If it was wrong to have done (‘improper’ would be a better word without the insinuation that there are actual standards of morality) then certainly people smarter then he would have said so.  Dr. Hawkings had read his history and science books and learned nothing about black men from Tuskegee, or Dr. Eugene Saenger, or, together, Richard H. Gross, Alan Cox, Ruth Tatyrek, Michael Pollay, and William A. Barnes.  He had heard a great deal about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and of course, poor Galileo.  Clearly, it was a good thing that the religionists had been taken out of the picture and the ethics boards of scientific organizations packed with people who knew about reality the most- scientists themselves.

“Is there anything else that you talked about?” Dr. Hawkings asked.

“Well, they wanted to know more about why they had the names they had…”

“And you told them?” the chief cried out, incredulous.

Dr. Franken buried his head in his hands.  “Worse,” he moaned.  “I showed them the text itself.”

“He’s right,” Officer Todd declared.  “Adam’s got a book in his hand!”

“Let me talk to them,” Dr. Franken said.

“Oh my,” gasped Officer Todd.

“What is it?” inquired the chief.

“You’d just better look…”

The chief put the binoculars to his eyes and gazed up to the top of the building.  Adam and Eve were pointing and gesturing at Dr. Franken.  Evidently, they had noticed his presence.  That they were not pleased with him was demonstrated by the vulgar gestures that Eve was making in his direction and by Adam dropping his pants and exposing his backside to the good doctor.  Adam was slapping his own bare butt in Dr. Franken’s direction and chortling in scorn.

“I don’t think they want to talk to you…” the chief trailed off.

“I’m going up,” Dr. Franken said.  He didn’t wait for permission.  He stalked into the building and very soon found his way to the roof and past the police who were close by.  Dr. Hawkings was close behind.

“Adam… Eve… it’s me, your father…” Stein cooed.  The two only laughed in contempt.  He reasoned with them, “What difference does it make where you came from or how you got here?  You’re here, right?  This is all the meaning there is and it doesn’t make any difference whether you were made in a laboratory or born of a thousand successive generations…”

Eve gave him the finger.

“Really, now.  The nerve.  Look, this all isn’t worth dying for.  Don’t you know how important you are?  Think of all we can learn by studying you.  Think of all the people you might help.  You’re being selfish.”

Adam stared at the doctor, stony-faced.

“Alright then,” Dr. Franken continued, “What about me?  What about what you mean to me?  I mean, I might lose my funding… my research might come to an end and just think of all the knowledge that might be lost…”

It was perhaps the very worst thing to say.  Adam took Eve’s hand and the two glanced at each other with what might be regarded as mischievous and knowing smiles.  They inched closer to the edge of the building and then Adam said something to Dr. Franken that was very naughty.

And then they both stepped off the edge.

“Oh dear,” said Officer Todd.

Two bone crunching thuds in quick succession accompanied the sight of Adam and Eve plunging to their deaths before the eyes of the many onlookers below.

————-

In spite of the insanity of the act he had witnessed that day, the police chief went to bed that night with the lurking sensation that the pair had been the sanest of them all.

Dr. Hawkings fell asleep wondering about the lengths that people will go to deny that in fact they are wrong… demonstrably wrong.  Even when the truth is staring them right in the face, they’ll grasp at straws rather then admit an embarrassing overstatement or mischaracterization.  It was a behavior profoundly unique to humans and he just couldn’t get it to add up.

—————-

“Look Bill, the affair was messy.  True.  But let’s not make more of it then is warranted.”

“Geraldo, you’re nuts.  What you’ve got here… you know, I’m a good read of people… what you’ve got here are two individuals who testified with their lives that knowledge isn’t just a plaything.  The argument that knowledge is always valuable just for its own sake and if you don’t agree you aren’t a fan of science is just nonsense.  Knowledge can hurt people, and whatever the materialists say, there is more to humanity, and to reality, than meets the eye.  This doctor went where only God ought to go.  That’s what this incident proves.”

“With all do respect, that’s just the old ‘God of the gaps’ assertion… and if there is no God then why shouldn’t humans step into the gap?”

“No, you misunderstand.  I’m not talking about what we can do but what we ought to do.  I think Adam and Eve learned the truth and decided that they much preferred this other account, this account where people are the creation of a loving entity that desires a relationship with them over the truth in this case which was that they were just the product of the curiosity of a butt load of other humans.”

“Butt load, right, a pun.  Seriously, Bill, what’s wrong with curiosity?”

“Where did I say there is anything wrong with it?  I’m just saying that there are lines, there are boundaries.  We’re probably well over it as far as the cloning issue goes.  People are more than the sum of their parts.  You know, a person’s family, his father and mother, his grandparents, these sort of things, these make up a person’s identity and you can try to short circuit it but people are people and they know better.  You can do things in the name of knowledge that actually conceals truth about humanity, and in the concealing, hurt people.  Alright, there ya go.  Show’s about over… I’ll give you the last word…”

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”  He called a little child and had him stand among them.  And he said:  “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.  Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”  Matthew 18:1-4

Christianity (and religion in general) is often maligned as being anti-curiosity.  Passages like the one I just quoted are often cited.  This understanding is fueled by two flawed notions.  1.  Faith is belief apart from evidence, or in Dawkinian terms, even in spite of the evidence.  2.  A child’s faith, which Jesus calls people to have, is simplistic and unquestioning.

Let me first take aim at Dawkins (and the other New Atheists) on this.  The man is flat out wrong.   I believe that I am the only person to have done the research to prove that either he is a lazy scholar, and outright biased maniac, or a flat out liar, (or evil, but I choose not to think about that) in regards to one of his quotes in The God Delusion where he tries to show that Christianity is outright against curiosity and learning using a quote from Augustine’s Confessions to make his case.  The man is wrong.  Much of the advances in science and philosophy for hundreds of years were done by Christians- a point he acknowledges by saying that these Christians, had they been born today, would have been atheists.  Nonetheless, they were Christians and they were inquisitive.  I guess Christianity isn’t incompatible with curiosity after all.  Anyway, if you’re interested in my trouncing of Dawkings on this point, read this.

Now let me take aim at the two contentions above, beginning with #2.

Anyone who has kids knows that they ask a lot of questions and they are increasingly more sophisticated.  My oldest child is only six and he has already asked me why bad things happen to good people if God is loving and can do anything.  If you can find me an adult with anything more sophisticated than that, I’m their huckleberry.   I often wonder if people who think ‘faith like a little child’ is ‘childish’ spend much time around children.  I know that my experience is not merely anecodotal.  As one who was in charge of Sunday School programs and was a teacher at the junior and senior high level and two years of college, I can testify that kids ask a lot of hard questions.

I can also testify to the fact that the difference in the age groups doesn’t have anything to do with sophistication of the questions but rather the attitude in which the questions are asked.  A six year old asks a question because he really wants to know.  A thirteen year old wants to play gotcha.  A senior in high school already knows the answer and knows you’re wrong.  A college kid wants to tell you the answer.  Sometime in college it begins to sort out so that a person raising the question could be in any of the categories of attitude I just listed.

Here I think we will be helped by noting that the Bible never says we need to have ‘faith like a little child.’  Never.  I welcome correction- but I’ve never seen it.  Look at the passage above.  Do you see the word ‘faith’ in it?  I don’t.  People read ‘faith’ into the passage because they have prior notions about ‘faith’, thinking that surely that must be what Jesus means.  But Jesus says what he means:  “whoever humbles himself like this child.”

In other words, Jesus is not calling people to believe things without asking questions.  He is calling people to have a certain kind of attitude.  We would be more accurate if we said we needed to have ‘humility like a little child.’  The difference between the questions my son asks and the questions my high school seniors asked was attitude.  The questions themselves were, most of the time, equally difficult.

Did  Jesus know that kids ask lots of questions?  Yes, I think he did.  And to be fair, I think a big reason why teenagers and adults come to have ‘bad’ attitudes is because they’ve been offered unsatisfactory and incomplete answers and sometimes been lied to.  They begin throwing up defenses, becoming hypercritical, claiming skepticism but in fact practicising cynisism. You cannot enter the kingdom of heaven if your worst fear is that you’re going to be hoodwinked.

Clearly, the task is to try to find an answer-giver who won’t lie to your or abuse his position (Matt 18:6).

But let us set aside this unbiblical notion about ‘faith like a little child’ and the notion that Christians aren’t to ask questions or shouldn’t think critically.  This notion doesn’t come from the Bible.

You’ll note that I didn’t address #1, precisely what ‘faith’ is.  Well, I guess my point is that a humble approach to the question would be to ask the question, “According to the Bible, what is faith” and then have an attitude that spurs you to investigate- and accept the answer when it is in your hand.  But to quickly settle the argument that faith is indifferent to evidence, I will submit just one passage and leave it there.  That passage is John 14:11

Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

Doner aims to diagnose the ailments of the Evangelical church and comes to the conclusion that Gnosticism is the chief culprit. Gnosticism was repudiated by the early church but Doner argues that it was actually re-introduced by many church fathers via Plato and Philo and others. Gnosticism continued to arise under different guises and often succeeded because of its ability to adapt and employ arguments based on the Christian Scriptures, thus making the Christian Church itself the primary source for new Gnostics.

Tracing this pattern, Doner finds that it leads to a pack of Catholic mystics who in turn influence and infect early founders of the Evangelical church such as John Wesley before given real life under Charles Finney and D.L. Moody, and then generating real power when armed with the Dispensationalist teachings promulgated by Scofield’s Reference Bible which came out in 1909. Making the matters worse, the Evangelical churches abandoned the heritage handed down by the Apostles through the church fathers and set aside the principles of Calvin and Luther which aimed to reform the catholic (universal) church and do so while recognizing the weight of the historic orthodox Church.

The result, Doner argues, is an America filled with Christians who do not act like Christians, at least and especially outside the homes and the local church building. After all, Gnosticism holds a dualistic view of the world where matter is evil and our quest is to set aside such inferior entrapments and pursue true reality, the spiritual. Why try to engage society when you think it is all crude and inferior, anyway? Doner argues that this attitude also led to an emphasis on nothing more than individual salvation as being the goal of church activity. The net result is Christians who don”t know anything about their historic roots (orthodox or heretical) who focus only on their own personal piety (thou shalt not drink, smoke, or dance) who in the American tradition are contemptuous about ecclesiastical authorities such as the clergy or scholars and who do very little to affect society, to “disciple all nations.”

That is the basic argument. Doner’s book is well-researched and there are plenty of references. Doner makes it clear that he himself shared this background and was actually a leader of the Evangelical church operating on the same principles he is now rejecting. Before I go on to add some of my own reactions to his book, let me state in no uncertain terms that this is a book that should be read by millions. If you are a Fundamentalist Dispensationalist you will not like this book, but you should read it. Those from traditions that remain more in line with Calvin and Luther will find it intriguing to say the least. I would say that even Roman Catholics would be helped.

This review goes on for a ways. Read on.

I grew up educated in the schools of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and after college taught in those schools. Reading this book was a bit like watching another family fighting with each other. The Lutherans (like Catholics) are not Dispensationalists. They also do not get into the whole Rapture scene, holding a view that would be called amillennial. Again, like the Catholics, they are sacramentalists. In other words, I read this book from a position of observer. However, as a Christian apologist, I often have to endure the consequences of these Evangelical themes because many atheists are former Evangelicals. Thus, when I attempt to argue for the historic orthodox Christian church, these non-Christians will possess a view of Christianity that is actually derived from the 18^th or 19^th centuries. That makes my job harder.

I don’t think the Dispensationalists are going to be too happy with Doner on a number of levels. I wonder, though, if Doner is really prepared to go all the way in his analysis. For example, he repudiates one of the pillars of American pietism, the rejection of alcohol consumption, but is generally silent as to whether or not he would accept some of the positions of the Historic church on the sacraments. For example, does he agree with the Roman Catholics and the Lutherans on baptism, and consequently, infant baptism? Does he remain of the view that baptism is a personal, individualistic proclamation of one’s decision for Christ? It would seem like he shouldn’t. The same question could be asked about the Lord’s Supper. However, Doner is (perhaps wisely) silent on these issues.

But I’m not sure that I can completely accept his analysis that it is Gnosticism that is to blame for everything that Doner has pinned on it. I don’t at all disagree that Gnosticism forms a significant component. But is it really the chief culprit? I don’t think so. In the later chapters when Doner begins to expound on ‘American Religion’ and the rank individualism of American culture and the integration of that individualism into the worldview of the Evangelicals, it feels a bit like he’s wandered off his premise because I’m not so sure individualism itself is Gnostic in nature.

And while consumerism and individualism are indeed pernicious elements within the Christian churches, it is unclear as to whether or not in Done’s conception they have any kind of proper place. In particular, I think of some of the individualism. Those fleeing religious persecution in Europe had good reasons, in my view, for being distrustful of the ecclesiastical powers. If a problem in the Evangelical church is that every person gets to be their own Bible interpreter even if they are grossly incompetent and giving due respect to scholars and religious leaders and institutions is a portion of the solution, how does Doner handle the fact that in the Roman Catholic church such a deference existed for hundreds of years, leading to such nightmarish results like the Crusades and the Inquisition?

In other words, there are historically some good reasons for being distrustful of ecclesiastical structures and powers that have nothing to do with Gnosticism. How and where would Doner draw the line, here? This is again something that Doner is silent on. This may be simply because he’s trying to raise awareness, but I think that this issue needs to be addressed.

In a similar vein, it would seem as though Doner himself lays out some foundation for being critical of these authorities, both past and present. He argues that the Evangelical church treats with contempt the idea that one would actually need to study the Scriptures and make use of scholars and the church fathers and church authorities, but he attacks all of these as often being, in lesser and greater measures, influenced by Gnosticism! If I was an Evangelical listening to Doner I would wonder how I can simultaneously defer to authorities when authorities like Finney, Moody, and Billy Graham are being given the blame for perpetuating Gnostic attitudes.

On a deeper level (because I agree with Doner in many respects), he manages even to go after church fathers like Clement, Origen, and Augustine. But if you’re supposed to give some attention and respect to the church fathers how can you go after them at the same time? Isn’t it possible, for example, that Augustine’s respect for Plato is actually perfectly acceptable and within Christian orthodoxy, and not Gnostic? How can you find out? You can’t trust the church fathers completely and you can’t rely on your own individualistic interpreting, so where does that put you?

Now, I should say that I have not pursued this angle with nearly as much research as Doner has. He gives enough resources that the inquirer could dig into this himself, but that itself raises the problem of giving some proper due to the individual’s ability to do their own investigation. My point here is not to discount the fact, or possibility, that Gnosticism infected even stalwart ancient fathers, but rather to raise the issue that Doner doesn’t provide us with any kind of baseline analysis by which we might be able to independently discern heresy in the church fathers if at the same time we are appealing to such men to establish a view of orthodoxy.

I concede that I am an outsider looking in and also that I have not performed the study that Doner has here. However, there are other areas of analysis that I don’t agree with. In particular, how he traces alleged influences. I trust that when he asserts that Wesley read certain ‘mystical’ works that this is the case, but I wonder if this is good methodology if applied in all scenarios.

By way of example, Doner is silent on a famed Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis. But he is not silent on Chuck Colson, who Doner insists has come more and more to see things the way that Doner does (see page 209). But Colson cites C.S. Lewis as instrumental in bringing about his conversion to Christianity. Lewis is from the Anglican church, which (excepting that whole King Henry the 8^th incident) has proper deference to authority and certainly accepts the creeds and the Church fathers. Ah, but Lewis cites George MacDonald as an enormous influence on him, saying that MacDonald baptized his imagination. On the back of one of MacDonald’s books we read:

I have never concealed the fact that I regarded George MacDonald as my master; indeed, I fancy I have never written a book in which I did not quote from him.

But George MacDonald was influenced by those like William Blake, who in turn was influenced by… William Law. William Law is singled out over and over in Doner’s book as being engrossed in Gnosticism and perpetuating it. And, as I can also cite C.S. Lewis as a ‘master’ that means that I also have the disease of Gnosticism rolling about in me, somewhere!  Or so this methodology would imply.

There are some Christians that would in fact make this case, and perhaps Doner would, which is why I have received this review copy. Many Evangelicals would classify Lewis as actually being a pagan, and cite MacDonald and his influences, right on down to William Law (and beyond), as evidence. But the people making this argument are often the anti-intellectuals that Doner is singling out for chastisement. So, I’m not sure what one is to do here.

My suggestion would be that not all Platonism is Gnosticism and there may have been perfectly good reasons for why the Church fathers incorporated some Platonic elements into their thinking about doctrine. This would require further study on my part to demonstrate, but I suggest that such analysis would have to be forthcoming by Doner, as well, since he aims to return the church fathers to a place of esteem in the Evangelical church as well as the creeds that these men produced for us.

My final concern has to do with Doner’s insistence that we are not paying enough attention to society. I am an amillennialist, and Doner concedes that while this isn’t as optimistic of a position as his own (pg 106); amillinnealism is in fact the historic position. Anyway, he doesn’t have as much of a problem with amillennialism as he does pre-millennialism.

The argument seems to be that the call to engage society means really subduing the earth and its nations to a Christian worldview. Now, I definitely believe we should engage society. But I do not believe that we should make the world ‘Christian.’ That sounds too much like Islam or the Roman Catholic perception of several centuries ago. I don’t quite know what Doner is getting at, here. Knowing a little bit of Brian McLaren, whom Doner cites frequently and favorably, and as I am not convinced that McLaren really appreciates genuine orthodoxy, I wonder if another extreme- the Social Gospel- is being entertained.

We have all seen what happened when Christianity was in charge of actual governance under the Popes. It wasn’t a pretty picture. Just how far should the engagement with society go? If we successfully get rid of abortion, alcohol, and pornography and rid the world of poverty, will we have really achieved a Christian world? I don’t think so, and I have trouble believing that this is what Doner is advocating. And in his defense, he chastises those who reject all use of alcohol (as he should. I agree that is a perfect illustration of modern Gnosticism). But it is all very unclear just where he would draw the lines, if he would draw them at all.

Doner appears to take as his mandate on this issue Matthew 28:18 which calls for the discipling of all nations. He calls for the ‘redemption of the whole world.’ Such a policy is out of bounds to someone with Gnostic feelings since the world is a sinful thing that will pass away. Doner also uses the word ‘creation’ in place of the word ‘world’ which makes me think he is advocating for the subjection of the whole universe to the Christian battle standard. One distinction here is that Gnostics didn’t merely think the world was sinful, but that the material was an illusion altogether. You can think that the world is fallen into corruption while accepting its reality and original goodness without being Gnostic, and similarly you can point out that the Scriptures make it clear that this present order really is going to pass away.

Quoting from 2 Peter 3 will be helpful here:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. (vs. 10)

In the face of such a passage we might expect Doner to reply that we are still called to ‘redeem the world.’ But what does Peter say? He continues:

Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless, and at peace with him.

If one did not know that this was Peter writing, under Doner’s analysis one might think you were reading a Gnostic, pietistic account. For myself, I am not prepared to accept that Peter suffered from this heresy. Yet, there is no hint in this passage that we ought to have a goal of redeeming the world. Not merely does there seem to be a place for the view that one should focus on personal holiness in the face of the coming destruction, a passage like this one lays it out explicitly.

It seems to me that this whole issue is one of fundamental importance within the American Christian church. It is a matter that requires attention. Desperately. I don’t agree at all with the attitude that fully dismisses involvement in our political system, but nor do I believe that our call includes subjugating everything to the Christian worldview. A nation or world or universe that has and enforces Christian moral standards 100% still would not mean that the people within those contexts are Christian.

I would maintain that our best bet is to try to convince more people to be Christians and in this way ‘secular’ governance is affected and hopefully conforms in the best ways to Christianity. Doner rejects this as simply not working but he is rejecting it as not working among those who are fundamentally ignorant about their Bible and how to read it and whose primary assurance of being Christian is the fact that they participated in an altar call. I agree with him that the approach won’t work when you’ve got uninformed and misinformed ‘Christians’ running about. But what if they know their stuff? What if you have Christians who have really begun to ‘transform their minds’ as described in Romans 12? I think that changes matters altogether.

Despite these challenges, I still commend Doner’s book to anyone and everyone. I think he raises valid points as to whether or not Dispensationalism is supported in the Scriptures and agree with him on certain effects of that view. I don’t accept his analysis that Gnosticism is truly the root cause for all of this. I agree with him that a return to the creeds and a historic understanding of the Christian faith and training the intellect is called for. I wonder how such a view can be reconciled with continual favorable quotations of Brian McLaren who seems to be quite prepared to take a different tact. I agree that Christians need to be more active in society but don’t agree that to think or do otherwise is to engage in the worst forms of Pietism.

Personally, I believe the Church could be doing tons more internally and if it did so the ‘secular’ manifestation would be significant, even if we stopped all ‘secular’ activities altogether. In other words, I do not believe that our internal focus has been tried and found wanting, but that it hasn’t really been properly tried.

Yes, I disagree with him on a number of levels, but agree with him on many important points. At the very least, the Christian church needs to have a conversation on these issues, and Doner adds substantially to that conversation.

The idea to produce bulletin inserts with apologetic content goes back several years with me.  I had to set the idea aside because of pressing financial concerns.   My beloved wife has always insisted that it is one of my better ideas, so she prompted me to re-consider.  Some friends ratified her view.  Also, increasing the awareness within the Christian church of the facts beneath the faith has become an important part of my vision of late.  The more I interact with atheists and seekers and Christians on the ropes, the more I realize that most objections could have been handled pretty early on.  By the time I present information, it is often too late:  a bad attitude has set in.

In other words, let’s keep people from leaving the faith in the first place.  These bulletin inserts make use of the readings in the Church year and are geared towards this coming Advent season (December 2007).  They play upon the texts and give examples of archeological corroboration of the Christian Scriptures, insights from the Greek and Hebrew, and also commentary by the Church fathers, like Augustine and Justin the Martyr.

Fully implemented, the Apologetic bulletin insert idea would be expanded so that each week of the three year church calender (quick math:  156 separate inserts) would have their own insert.  A congregation that implemented such a program would slowly educate their members on all sorts of matters.  Perhaps it doesn’t seem apparent how a reading from Justin the Martyr could possibly be relevant to today’s challenges.  Here is where a certain trust in my experience as an apologist kicks in.

The passage in question argues against Trypho the Jew’s allegations that Christianity is a borrowed pagan myth.  Only a brief time on the Internet will show how that could be relevant.  Seeing how such challenges are not even new in the slightest but addressed not much more than a century after Christianity’s conception can go a long way to help people see that even if they themselves are not knowledgeable, there are Christians that are, and modern ‘objections’ were defeated by our ancients forbears.

The content in the insert is necessarily brief.  It may sometimes be over people’s heads.  However, my goal is to slowly build up people’s knowledge.  If they don’t understand something this time around, three years from now when Year A in the church calendar comes, hopefully they’ll see the relevance and understand the significance much better.

Please check out the page describing this more and tell all of your friends.