This question is a bit like asking the question: “What is the meaning of life?” In effect, it is the same question. Your specific religion equates to whatever you view as the meaning of life. Although this is my own definition, it is reasonably consistent with the following dictionary entries, which also seek to define ‘religion’:
A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.[1]
A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.[2]
Using the above definitions, Evolution may also be viewed as a religion, because it involves a set of beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of life. For example, very many Evolutionists promote these three doctrines with the same intensity of any religious zealot:
- The first living organism arose by random chance through ancient chemical reactions. This might be considered as the cause for biological life.
- The structure of living organisms can constantly change, and very significant changes can happen over long time intervals. This might be considered to be the nature of biological life.
- The driving influence behind all living organisms is the struggle to survive against all other organisms. This might be considered to be the purpose of biological life.
All religions are certainly not the same. For example, here is a quote from the “Statement of Belief” from an organization called Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance:
We are a multi-faith group. As of 2010-DEC, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters, such as belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists, what form the afterlife may take, etc.[4]
There are vast differences between the world’s two largest religions (Christianity and Islam), as well as significant differences within each of their branches.[5] The differences between the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) and Hinduism (the world’s third largest religion) are even larger.[6]
As the previous section explained, the answer to this question depends on which religion you are referring to, since all religions have different doctrines. For example, Evolution is clearly compatible with what might be labeled non-theistic religions (atheism[7], agnosticism[8], and scientific humanism[9]).
Some followers of theistic religions also believe that their faith is compatible with Evolution. For example, Francis Collins (of the Human Genome Project) presents this viewpoint in his book The Language of God.[10] Collins is an advocate for what is often labeled as Theistic Evolution.
Theistic Evolution maintains that God used the process of Evolution to create biological life forms. Because Theistic Evolution is consistent with the major doctrines of Evolution, many Evolutionists have no objection to it. This position is described in a quote from Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences:
Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed "theistic evolution," is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines.[11]
However, very many followers of theistic religions don’t believe that God used Evolution to create biological life forms. They argue that Evolution is inconsistent with the Biblical account of creation. For example, an Answers in Genesis article by Bodie Hodge argues that Evolution violates the Biblical doctrine that sin came before death.[12]
To be clear about my own faith, I also believe that Evolution is inconsistent with Biblical doctrine. Thus, I have a religious bias. However, atheists, agnostics, scientific humanists, and theistic evolutionists also have their own religious or anti-religious biases. The next section discusses how such biases impact the debate over Evolution.
The Miriam Webster’s On-Line Dictionary defines bias as, “an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially: a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment.”[13] We all have many biases. For example, most people believe that “good is better than evil” and that “telling the truth is more honorable than telling lies.”
Not all bias is bad. A biased person simply possesses an opinion that favors one-side of an issue over the other. For example, most people believe that murder is wrong, which makes them biased against legalizing murder. The question is whether our biases are justified by rational reasoning.
Many Evolutionists would argue that any commentary I offer on the Fact of Evolution will be tainted by my belief in the Judeo-Christian God. In contrast, I could argue that any commentary an atheist or agnostic offers on the Fact of Evolution will be tainted by their rejection of the Judeo-Christian God. Neither argument is a valid one.
The fact that an overwhelming percentage of NAS Biologists (95%) profess atheistic and agnostic beliefs does not taint their arguments for the Fact of Evolution.[14] The only thing that taints an argument is the content of the argument itself. This book promotes the concept of Religiously Neutral Science – in order to focus on the arguments themselves.[15]
It is clear that atheists and agnostics normally accept the a priori assumption that nothing supernatural ever impacts the natural world (so-called scientific naturalism).[16] It is equally clear that many people who believe in God consider this a priori assumption to be an unreasonable bias against supernatural explanations for the origin of life.
Because supernatural causes can explain any event, they can neither be proved nor disproved. Thus, Evolutionists cry foul when supernatural explanations for the origin of life are discussed. However, by the same standard, the a priori assumption of scientific naturalism is a foul, since it can neither be proved nor disproved.
The main thesis of this book is that the empirical evidence for the broad definition of the Fact of Evolution is virtually non-existent, providing one doesn’t insist on the a priori assumption of scientific naturalism. Thus, a major issue in the debate over Evolution is whether an a priori assumption of scientific naturalism represents an unreasonable bias.
In an unbiased evaluation of the Fact of Evolution, both natural and supernatural influences must be considered as possible alternatives. If an a priori assumption rules out either of these options, then any conclusions reached are no stronger than the a priori assumption. In such an unbiased evaluation, the empirical evidence will be the focus.
I have no objection to atheists or agnostics arguing that the a priori assumption of scientific naturalism is valid. But if they reach conclusions based on assuming the validity of scientific naturalism, rather than on evaluating the evidence independent of this assumption, then such conclusions are biased by that assumption.
A Houghton-Mifflin press release for The God Delusion describes Richard Dawkins as “the world’s foremost atheist.”[17] According to the press release, Dawkins book argues that, “belief in God is not just irrational but incredibly harmful.”[18] Dawkins is quick to see all the “evils that men do in the name of God.”[19]
However, men have a long track record of doing evil, with or without connection to the name of God. For example, millions of people lost their lives in the Nazi Holocaust[20], Russian Gulags[21], Mao’s Cultural Revolution[22], and the Killing Fields[23] of the Khmer Rouge regime. These mass killings certainly do not connect to belief in God.
The last century is not unique. The ancient world (prior to the time of Christ) was dominated by brutal secular empires questing for power: the Assyrian Empire[24], Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian Empire[25], the Persian Empire of Cyrus and Darius[26], Alexander the Great’s Greek Empire[27], and Caesar’s Roman Empire [28].
Dawkins is correct that people have done a lot of evil in the name of promoting their religion. But he seems blind to the fact that much of the evil men have done has much more to do with the quest for power than the quest for God. The problem of evil is not belief in God. The problem of evil is the nature of men.
Furthermore, Dawkins makes the unwarranted assumption that all religions can be lumped together as a single entity and judged guilty. However, I doubt that Dawkins would consider it appropriate for all Europeans to be judged guilty of the Nazi Holocaust, or all atheists to be judged guilty of communist purges.
The Judeo-Christian worldview does assign a global quilt to all men. This guilt stems from a rebellion against God that started with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.[29] According to Psalm 14:3, “All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.”[30]
This theology doesn’t mean that men are incapable of isolated good actions. Rather, it means that men are incapable of sustaining good behavior because they are driven by selfish desire and dominated by various types of greed and lust. For example, men have committed all kinds of evil acts in the pursuit of power, money, and sex.
The Houghton Mifflin press release quotes Dawkins as saying: “Those who literally wish to base their morality on the Bible have either not read it or have not understood it.”[31] I dispute that. Christian morality is based on men recognizing their evil nature, confessing it to God, and relying on his mercy and forgiveness to change their hearts.
In The God Delusion, Dawkins asserts that the only reason “to be good is to gain God's approval and reward.”[32] However, Dawkins misunderstands the Christian motivation for being good. Being good is its own reward. Being good has always been God’s desire for his creation.[33]
The laws of physics permit both good and evil and they favor neither choice. The mere fact that good and evil exist, and that good is better than evil (even in the opinion of Dawkins), suggests that there is something outside of the laws of physics that makes good “good” and evil “evil.”
The Judeo-Christian worldview is that the nature of God is the deciding factor between good and evil. In essence, whatever God desires is good, and whatever God denounces is evil. As Creator of the world, God claims the right to make the moral rules that govern it.[34]
The atheist’s battle with God represents a power struggle over who has the right to make the rules that determine good and evil. Dawkins is a signature of the Humanist Manifesto III, which states:
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.[35]
Needless to say, this claim contradicts the Judeo-Christian view. In essence, the Humanists claim for themselves the right to define morality, which puts them in the place of God. As Joshua puts it, we must choose which God we serve (including the option of placing ourselves in the role of God):
But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD. (Joshua 24:15 – NIV)[36]
Because atheists exhibit no desire to seek and serve God, they are unable to find him.[37] In contrast, I have followed the advice of the Bible’s King David: “Taste and see that the Lord is good.”[38] I have tasted and seen that God is indeed good. If you don’t follow the directions God gives, you should not expect to find him.
Acknowledgements
Endnotes are contained in the following section. The following shorthand notation connects the numbered endnotes to permission statements:
N(x, y, z, …) indicates endnotes numbered ‘x’, ‘y’, ‘z’.
I gratefully acknowledge permission to reproduce quotes from the following copyrighted material:
N(11): Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999), http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6024.html. Reprinted with permission from Science, Evolution, and Creationism, 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington , D.C.
N(29, 30, 33-38): Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
Notes and References
[1]. “Religion," Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House, 24 January 2011, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion.
[3]. "Religion," Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition, HarperCollins, 24 January 2011, as quoted from the website: Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion.
[4]. “Our Statement of Beliefs,” ReligiousTolerance.org, 8 December 2010, http://www.religioustolerance.org/statbelief.htm.
[5]. “Comparing Christianity and Islam: the world’s two largest religions,” ReligiousTolerance.org, 8 December 2010, http://www.religioustolerance.org/comp_isl_chr.htm.
[6]. “Hinduism – The world’s third largest religion,” ReligiousTolerance.org, http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism.htm.
[7]. “Atheism – Belief in no God, or no belief in God,” ReligiousTolerance.org, http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm.
[8]. “Agnostics and Agnosticism: Uncertainty about whether God exists,” ReligiousTolerance.org, http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm.
[9]. “Scientific Humanism and the Humanist Manifestos,” ReligiousTolerance.org, http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism.htm.
[11]. Science and Creationism: A View from the
[12]. Bodie Hodge, “Biblically, Could Death Have Existed Before Sin,” 2 March 2010, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/03/02/satan-the-fall-good-evil-could-death-exist-before-sin.
[14]. John G. West, “The Gospel according to
[15]. See “Religiously Neutral Science” in “About Science” at the website: David M. Kern, “The Fact of Evolution?” http://sites.google.com/site/factofevolution/.
[17]. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (
[18]. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (
[19]. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (
[29]. Genesis 3 (NIV) – See BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203&version=NIV.
[30]. Psalm 14:3 (NIV) – See BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2014:3&version=NIV.
[31]. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (
[32]. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (
[33]. The phrase “And God saw that it was good” is repeated five times in Genesis 1. See BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=saw+that+it+was+good&searchtype=phrase&version1=31&spanbegin=1&spanend=1.
[34]. Psalm 24:1 (NIV) – The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it. See Bible Gateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2024:1&version=NIV.
[35]. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism_and_Its_Aspirations for background information. The quotation in context is available at this website: “Humanism and its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933,” American Humanist Association, http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III.
[36]. Joshua 24:15 (NIV) – See BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+24:15&version=NIV.
[37]. Deuteronomy 4:29 NIV – But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul. See BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+4:29&version=NIV.
[38]. Psalm 34:8 (NIV) – Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him. See BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2034:8&version=NIV.
No comments:
Post a Comment