Response to Skinner and Soul Level

Skinner

            First let me thank you for the response; I’m excited to have thoughtful comments to help me focus and to carry on an interesting discussion. My original hope in starting a blog was to carry on a dialog about things I was thinking or reading about. The blog has been up for some time, and based on comments, only family commented and not much discussion. As a result I lost interest for a time and then started to use the blog as a file repository for some of the stuff I was reading or thinking about. This is good!
            The primary point that D’Souza is making in Chapter one is that the world is rejecting the secular perspective. Whether that is good or bad is the subject of later chapters. Radical Hinduism seems like an oxymoron and so far at least hasn’t seemed like a good thing. Back to the point of the chapter – that secularism / materialism doesn’t have much draw. Certainly, religion of all varieties is growing with Christianity growing the fastest.
            In the words of David Quammen in The Reluctant Mr. Darwin, even in the USA, in spite of a couple of generations of biology classes in which mention of religion is frowned upon, most people “choose to understand the origin of our species as if Darwin had never lived.” The Gallup organization has been polling people since 1982 on the issue of evolution and creation. In 2004 when posed with the statement “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time in the past 10,000 years or so” (Creationism), 45% agreed with that statement, 38% agreed with the statement that “humans have developed over millions of years from lower forms of life, but that God guided the process” (Theistic Evolution). A statement that Quammen says is “utterly inconsistent with what Darwin proposed”. Just 13% agreed with the statement that “humans have developed from other life forms without guidance by God”. The interesting thing is these numbers have not changed significantly in the 6 times they have conducted the poll since 1982. Again in the words of Quammen, an admirer and biographer of Darwin, approximately 87% of the American population does not believe the fundamental principle of Darwin that higher life forms evolve from lower life forms through blind materialistic processes. Darwin's Evolution doesn't appear to be believable to the majority of the population of the world.
            Communism or at least the socialistic versions seen in USSR and China, while not dead, is not doing well for a variety of reasons. Probably the main reason it has imploded is that it is inconsistent with the nature of man even though many aspects pure communism are a great idea and tried briefly in early Christianity. For communism to work well, the people must be fundamentally and almost exclusively good, generous, and kind people. Not much evidence of that.
            I guess it is important to define secularism a bit more precisely. Skinner is correct saying that historical secularism refers to separation of religion and government. However the term has morphed to include separation of religion and truth which expands the definition and somewhat merges it with Materialism – the idea that there is only one true thing – matter. I (and I think D’Souza) am using Secularism and Materialism somewhat interchangeably. Secularism as such goes beyond a form or philosophy of government, it is a philosophical world view that says we don’t need divine intervention or revelation to give meaning or direction in any area of life including government, biology, the ‘meaning of life’, etc, or any of the important questions humans ask. A pure secularist (whatever that is) would say that the only valid source of truth is science and no god is necessary; many of the current atheist authors are saying that religion is a liability and must be eradicated.
            I’m not sure I have ever heard anyone argue that murder, rape, and pillage have survival value in the way that Darwin used it.
            Darwinian theory is clear that we humans are here as a result of a purposeless, directionless, and meaningless process with no guarantee that humans are a good idea or a dead end and with some speculating that the world might be better off without us. (Chernobyl in its current form gives some indication that nature might do well with some well placed nukes to clear out the human population.) Purpose and meaning for our existence can’t come from a directionless process.
            I’m not sure what swarms of people have to do with the argument. Demographics seem to say that the secular materialistic countries of Europe and now America are not reproducing themselves; they are short of workers and it is causing problems for their economies and cultures. You might argue that is not a problem, there are swarms of people who want to fill the void, but that begs another question of why those people want to leave. I’m afraid that is an issue beyond the scope of this argument.
            I don’t think I understand the optical illusion and shaft arguments. The only point I was making is that hopeful people whose hope is based on truth or reality with survive better than hopeless people or hopeful people whose hope is based in fantasy.
            Again I don’t think I understand the ‘human history’ argument. All the countries named rose to power under religious (not necessarily good) people, they now seem to be declining in influence, stability, and prosperity relative to the rest of the world as a function of their move toward a secular and non-religious society. Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, the Roman philosophers, and our founding fathers all seem to agree that governments will fail if the moral discipline of religion is missing.

Soul Level Response (It’s late and I’m tired so I hope this makes sense when I read it tomorrow.

            I guess there is a difference between a story that entertains us and fundamental truths. There is general agreement that myths are built around at least a kernel of truth. If there is not at least some truth and we live our lives around a lie, I can’t see how good will come of it.
            “Religion is a good way to motivate society.” The question is why is “religion a great way to organized people and society”. Men like Plato and Aristotle while not so sure of the Olympian gods, were adamant about religious duties and some believe were tending to a supreme being – a first cause. Many of the founding fathers of our nation while themselves not professing to be whole-hearted religious men felt that our government could not function without the virtues espoused by religions men.
            In the first few chapters of this book, D’Souza is arguing that Atheism is losing the battle against Religion worldwide, mad as hell about it, confused about the stupidity of humans who don’t accept evolution as a fact, believe in science as the arbiter of truth, and that they are becoming aggressive about promulgating their belief.
            Taoism - There is a difference between a personal god and an impersonal something that is a first cause. I know little about Taoism, but it appears to me to be a system somewhat related to later Buddhism and still later Epicureanism where the goal is to purge oneself of desire. That might be a good idea when applied to warring or covetous neighbors but if applied to our business or children is likely to result in failure. In any case, again forgive my lack of knowledge of Taoism, but I think it has an understanding of origins that includes purpose and therefore at odds with evolutionary theory. Again based on the little I know, Taoists believe that something nurtured humans in the beginning but doesn’t care much about what happens to us now. I’d better leave Taoism at this point before my ignorance becomes more obvious.
            I’m not sure I understand the population argument unless you might be arguing that it would be a good thing if Secular / Materialists failed to reproduce themselves so as to leave room for people too ignorant to figure out how many kids they or their nations can afford. I’m not convinced that we know enough about overpopulation issues, but we sure know enough about starvation to do what we can. Unfortunately, even starvation is not a simple issue – witness Zimbabwe or Sudan.

            Well this has been fun, hope it continues, but I need to get some sleep.

D'Souza and Atheism Part 1

What’s So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D’Souza Part 1

       I have been reading D'Souza's book over the past several months. Like CS Lewis' books, it is heavy reading because he says so much in so few words and covers such a wide range of arguments. I have been curious for the past several decades about what will happen as the center of Christianity moves out of the West. A partial answer for me is that several of my favorite Christian apologists originate from the Indian subcontinent. D'Souza came from India young enough to become involved in American politics at a national level.
       I had intended to summarize his book with a page or two, but am finding that impossible because of the subject range so here goes with D'Souza Part 1

Note that when quotes are included without referencing the author, I am quoting D'Souza

Chapters 1 & 2

       D’Souza opens his book with an aggressive statement about atheism. He say the world is witnessing a huge explosion of religious conversion and growth and Christianity is growing faster than any other religion. We are witnessing the twilight of atheism. The ranks of atheism are shrinking as a percentage of the population world wide. The fact that it is not so obvious to us living in the USA is that Christianity is growing in the southern hemisphere and Asia, but not as much in the west, especially in the USA and Europe. An indicator of the fact that secularism is not progressing as fast in the USA as many atheists would like is the regularly repeated puzzlement of secularists about the data that shows the number of people who believe in God and have doubts about evolution has stayed fairly constant for decades. An interesting and growing trend in Europe is preachers from developing nations moving to Europe to serve as pastors for churches there.
       Secularism, the idea that you can isolate the physical world and especially science and call it reality has lost some of its appeal. D’Souza says; “Secularism has lost its identification with progress and modernity, and consequently it has lost the main source of its appeal. God is very much alive, and His future prospects look to be excellent. This is the biggest comeback story of the twenty-first century.”
       A somewhat bizarre argument for the reason for the demise of atheism is that it is anti-evolutionary – there is no survival value in atheism. Secularism says that life and existence is meaningless and purposeless. Given that foundation, it is not surprising that secularists tend to not reproduce themselves. Atheists such as Scott Altran and others believe that religion requires a commitment to ‘factually impossible worlds’. The question for atheists then can be posed; Why humans would evolve in such a way that they come to believe in things that don’t exist. Christianity teaches that you are a special creation of a good and all-powerful God; created in his image with the capacities to think, feel, and worship that set you above all other life forms.
       Imagine these as two tribes of people, the secular and the religious, subscribing to two world views. The secular is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all and are made only of matter with no explanation of why they can think at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every thought and action as consequential. Which of the two tribes is more likely to survive, prosper, and multiply?
      “Atheism, not religion, requires a Darwinian explanation. Atheism is a bit like homosexuality: one is not sure where it fits into a doctrine of natural selection.”

Response to Jim Pruitt's Comment (Last Post)

          The author probably accepts the evolutionary perspective, but most characteristics of creatures that could be demonstrating survival of the fittest could also be taken as good design repeated in multiple creatures when appropriate. Similar functions in different species can be seen as nothing more than careful design for function; when a similar function is desired in different species, a similar design is called for.
          We can hypothesize that females carrying babies or caring for babies should be designed so that they are more cautious. This could result in design goals for females to have smaller ranges, stronger desire to be close to the babies, more care in the kind of rough-housing when pregnant and around the babies, stronger attachment to the babies and to the group. If we want to design the group or pair so that the combination has the greatest survival probability, the male might be designed for less caution when seeking food, less fear when faced with danger etc. In general, it would seem to be a good design if the females were more protective and nurturing (since in mammals, they carry the babies) and the males less careful about their personal safety. Body chemistry would be a good way to address these design characteristics in a biological machine. A brain that responded positively to adrenaline might be a good way to get a male to disregard danger to protect. Sin might make that good design characteristic bad if the subject decided to selfishly try to repeat the adrenaline rush for no good purpose.
          Now, about how faith fits into this, it appears to me that God requires us to act on our faith. Faith that God will care for my loved ones (or my neighbor) doesn’t release me from the responsibility to protect and provide. If God is a good designer, he will have given me the requisite skill requirements. I don’t think I can separate natural from divine given that the divine is the designer of the natural and that the end game is to transfer / transport something of the natural into the supernatural after the natural death transition.
          I think of the ‘lion laying down with the lamb’ thing as something very separate from the current state of affairs. It appears to me that people were vegetarians and that prior to the fall, the animal kingdom was also vegetarian implying that the ‘lion and lamb’ coexisted prior to the fall and will again after Christ removes the curse after the end of the world. Examples of the possibility are clear in nature – such as the Panda Bear with carnivore teeth and bamboo for food or omnivores in general and quite a lot of dog food is cereal.
         This is hardly scientific, but I don’t think we need to try to prove that the world was different before the fall because the scientific rules had to change at the point of the curse. For instance, entropy – the second law of thermodynamics – probably wasn’t in effect then or after time ends. If that were the case, science couldn’t even speculate because scientific method has to assume the scientific rules don’t change to even begin and investigation. I think I’m a little off the subject, but it’s fun to speculate about.
          Thoughts?