Naturalistic vs. Christian Theistic Views of History

Here is a letter by my editorial-adversary, David McLoughlin. He normally attacks the faith in the Bedford Bulletin, and keeps his political morosophy restricted to the Lynchburg, VA News & Advance. Last week, however, he stepped out side the box a bit and submitted this in Lynchburg. So, of course, I couldn’t allow the opportunity to pass. As of today, my response letter is still forthcoming.

History’s ‘what-ifs’

Letter writers frequently refer to the U.S. as a “Christian nation” or declare our “exceptionalism” — neither of which is true. Our heritage is as much the result of accident as it is of our own determination. Consider just a couple of the “what ifs” of history and think how fragile the outcomes were and what might have been.

After Muhammad’s establishment of Islam, it spread rapidly across North Africa resulting in the Moors ruling Spain for 700 years. In 1492, the Moors were finally defeated at Granada and ultimately driven out. What if the Moors had won at Granada?

Soon thereafter Spain began its exploration of the New World which included both North and South America. If the Muslims rather than Christians had been in control, Islam, not Christianity, may have dominated the Americas. The Spanish influence from Mexico south is still recognizable today. Our largest minority will soon be Hispanic. While my pure speculation may be of interest only to those who recognize the fragility and accidental character of history, it does suggest that we ought not to be so smug and certain of the reasons that provide the foundation of our characteristics today. We are as much an accident of history as any other nation and, as such, should accept that our destiny might have been much different. The Middle East is the result of the English drawing lines in the sand after World War I, and we are still living with that disaster.

The U.S. is important today as much because of the rich resources we inherited and the two oceans and two friendly countries on our borders as for our own efforts. While it’s true we are predominately Christian by numbers, thankfully we are a secular nation by our Constitution. Could it have been different if the Muslims had won at Granada? Sure. Most U.S. Christians might have been Muslim just like they would have been Hindu if born in India. Imagine a Muslim Liberty University.

My point, of course, is that we are the product of our history as fragile as that is, and a more worldly view, as opposed to an ethnocentric myopia, would serve us well as we participate in a multicultural world.

If people dislike the U.S., it’s not because of our wealth, but because of our attitudes and actions toward people of other nations.

DAVID McLOUGHLIN

Historical Whatnots?

I am compelled to identify the latent comic relief in David McLoughlin’s, “History’s ‘what-ifs’ (Letters to the Editor, Wednesday, 03/10). Although his premises and conclusions had serious intentions, attempting to wed these produces some slapstick philosophy. While McLoughlin admited his “pure speculation” would likely impress only those who share his outlook, he imposed his criticisms and conclusions upon everyone.

The undercurrent of this letter is what’s known as metaphysical determinism. That is, a view of final reality that starts with a blind, undirected universe, consisting of only physical stuffs—like humans and nations. These stuffs move through history, controlled purely by fixed natural laws. Prior physical stuffs, working in accord with these fixed natural laws produce “fragile...accidental” features with no unifying, purposive beginning, meaning or end.

Mindful of this, consider McLoughlin’s central what-if: “What if the Moors had won Granada?”

If peoples and nations are simply material stuffs, aimlessly determined by impersonal natural law, then one could rightly ask, What do you mean, “What-if”? Does he mean, ‘What if’ natural law was temporarily suspended in order to bring about an alternate product to that which all the historical and physical antecedent causes had predetermined (I owe kudos to Steve for this line of criticism)? This is ironically similar to C. S. Lewis’ definition of miracles. Natural miracles, Mr. McLoughlin? Hilarious.

Historical “what-ifs” make sense only if there is an absolute-personality Who, knowing all possible choices, deliberates and governs according to His plan and purposes. Thankfully, there is. “For kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations” (Psalm 22:28). McLoughlin’s “What-ifs” are intelligible only if the very Christianity he despises were true.

Secondly, he admitted that his observations were conjectural, but from these he goes on to insist, “we ought...we should.” These are moral terms. It is plain silliness to say that persons are the “accidental” outcome of blind historical and natural forces, and then speak of moral obligations. If McLoughlin’s correct, we may describe what “is” the case, but never prescribe what “ought” to be the case. Morality, Mr. McLoughlin? Uproarious.

Finally, McLoughlin presumes, on the one hand, that peoples’ choice of religion is sociologically determined. Nevertheless, even in making this claim, he, on the other hand, understands himself and his position free from such a morass, and thus culturally neutral. Sounds somewhat funny doesn’t it? Exactly.

McLoughlin, from his own culturally relative, predetermined social construct within a blind, impersonal historical flux, makes the moral demand that the rest of us, namely Christians, make the objective, personal, ethically meaningful choice to transcend our socially determined biases. Sidesplitting!

Only if Christianity is true, could McLoughlin’s request be performed.


KEVIN STEVENSON

Right Reasoning, pt. V, Reductio Ad Absurdum

We come now to a favorite of mine, the...

V. Reductio ad absurdum

A. Formally stated:

1. In order to prove P,
2. Presuppose, for argument’s sake, its contrary, not-P.
3. Argue that, in presupposing not-P, we’d have to conclude Q.
4. Demonstrate the absurdity and/or inviability of Q.
5. Conclude, P must be true.

B. 1. Illustrated from a pro-abortion argument:

i. In order to prove that, (P) women do not have the right to destroy the life within them,

ii. presuppose the opposite that, (not-P) women do have the right to destroy the life within them, since “women have a right over their own bodies” and that that “tissue” within them “is their own body.”

iii. However, if we presuppose this (not-P), then we must conclude that (Q) a. the aborted “tissue” (i.e., the child) has identical DNA to the woman, and b. that approximately half of women who have abortions also have penises (because approximately half of those aborted are boys).

iv. But both of these conclusions (Q) are utterly absurd.

v. Therefore, (P) it is not the case that women have the right to destroy the life within them.

B. 2. Illustrated from Scripture (Matt 12:24—26):

i. (P-assumed: I [Jesus] do not cast out demons by Beelzebul).

ii. Assume though that, (not-P) Satan casts out Satan

iii. If (not-P) Satan casts out Satan, then (Q) his kingdom is divided, ruined and cannot continue.

iv. But, since demonic activity is continuing, clearly (Q) is absurd.

v. Therefore, (P) I do not cast out demons by the power of Beelzebul.

B. 3. Again, Illustrated from Scripture (Matt 22:41ff):

i. (P-assumed: I [Jesus] am the Christ, more than merely David’s son)

ii. Assume (not-P), that I am merely David’s physical descendent (the Pharisees’ answer, see v. 42).

iii. If (not-P), then (Q) Jesus could not be David’s “Lord” (especially in first century near Eastern culture!!).

iv. But since David, writing “in the Spirit,” in Psalm 110:1, calls him “Lord,” (Q) is absurd.

v. Therefore, (P) I am the Christ, more than merely David’s son.

(NOTE: “And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more question” v. 46.)

Douglas Groothuis comments on this passage in this way:

“Jesus’ point was not to deny the Christ’s ancestral lineage to David, since Jesus himself is called ‘the son of David’ in the Gospels (Matthew 1:1), and since Jesus accepts the title without rebuke (Matthew 20:30—31). Rather, Jesus is denying that the Christ is merely the son of David; he is also Lord, and was so at the time of David. By using this reductio ad absurdum argument, Jesus attempts to expand his audience’s understanding of who the Christ is and that he himself is the Christ” (On Jesus, 34).

C. Fallacy factor:

Because the reductio is an indirect or negative argument, it is not as susceptible to particular fallacies. In essence, however, its just an expanded modus tollens. And since the modus tollens is subject to both informal fallacies and the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent, review those pitfalls there.

THE EVOLUTIONISTS’ DILEMMA

The transition from modernity and postmodernity has involved a radical shift in epistemology. However, within both paradigms, philosophical naturalism is the dominate metaphysical assumption. Therefore, the Christian’s need to be able to aptly confront and destroy the stronghold of the evolutionary hypothesis is always a fore issue.

In my experience, a frustration would often arise. This frustration was rooted in the nonbeliever's semantic sliding between two meanings of the term evolution. One the one hand, they will try in vain to argue for evolution in its etiological sense: Evolution explains the origins and sustention of everything. On the other hand, when this premise is being battered, they will quickly invoke some observational variations in a genus or the like, and then attempt to transfer the Christian’s concession of that point back into their argument for evolution in the etiological sense, what I call meta-evolution. They then want to point out that the Christian is anti-science in their rejection of meta-evolution.

Moreover, I’ve found that it is not always the case that this is overtly intentional on the part of the nonbeliever. That is, the nonbeliever is not equivocating the concepts self-consciously. A scanting look through any public science textbook will reveal the same method of persuasion; which, on the part of the textbook contributors, we must conclude however that the use of the equivocation is programmatic. Granting the natural man’s general enmity against God’s truth, the student takes the propaganda in as a fish does water. This argument can help in educating the nonbeliever of just how futile their underlying assumptions are.

Often, then, nonbelievers who have not engaged in the tough-mindedness required to see through the smoke of the intelligentsia are simply parroting what a minimum of 12 years of direct indoctrination has given them.

The only answer to bad reasoning is truth. I’ve found that the use of the dilemma--a valid form of argument--helpful in defusing this type of rhetoric.

Formally, the dilemma has the following pattern:

1. Either P or R

2. If P, then Q

3. If R, then S

4. Therefore, either Q or S

From here, one simply demonstrates from the conclusion (4) that Q and S are either irrelevant, unhappy, or absurd.

This is exactly what I attempt to do with the argument below. In short, microevolution is irrelevant since it is empirically demonstrable and perfectly consistent with biblical teaching; meta-evolution, however, is both a philosophical assumption and philosophically absurd. Therefore, neither concept presents a threat to the biblical doctrine of creation.

The next paragraph is a general framework for how I present my challenge to the evolutionist, though each dialogue must allow for vast personal variability. The more formal argument after it is incorporates an example of a redutio ad absurdum for deconstructing the meta-evolutionary premise. But again, this also requires some flexibility for viability. I hope you find it helpful.

The Thesis:

The evolutionary exponents are either unconsciously trading on ambiguity or are guilty of intentionally equivocating the term “evolution” in order to beguile their audience. Either way, it matters very little, for whether the evolutionary exponent prefixes the term “evolution” with “micro/macro” or “meta,”[1]and their respective connotations, neither concept threatens, much less circumvents the integrity of the basic biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

The Argument:

P1. When evolutionists use the term “evolution,” they are either denoting micro/macro-evolution or meta-evolution.

P2. If micro/macro-evolution is what is meant; that is, either minor or radical changes occurring within the constraints of the law of biogenesis, then surely no one is arguing, biblical creationist or otherwise.

P3. If meta-evolution is being assumed, however, then their argument is self-referentially incoherent, self-refuting; if they’re right, then they’re wrong. This premise is not only intuitively true,[2] but objectively so, for two major reasons:

If (A) “All that Is” is merely a random, impersonal, unconscious collision of atoms and their chaotic chemical interactions, then our brains are simply one minor part in this disorderly, irrational cosmic dance.

Nevertheless, if our brains are ultimately thus, then what we imagine to be “thoughts” and/or “reasoning” are only a façade, since the electro-chemical reactions occurring in our brains couldn’t have any more truth value and/or rational meaning than any other of our physiological happenings.[3]

Furthermore, if (B) matter is all that “Is,” then the fundamental laws that govern our thought—the laws of logic—could not exist. For such laws (i.e., logic, mathematics, morality, etc.) are immaterial and abstract (hence, contradicting “Matter is all there Is”); moreover they are absolute and invariable. (Thus, also contradicting the proposition the physical universe is all that exists, because the only absolute and unchanging feature of the physical universe is that it’s ever- changing, thus, never absolute!)

C1. If, therefore, meta-evolution is taken to be the case, then we have absolutely no reason for believing that it is true, since true thoughts and logical inferences would be impossible.

C2. When arguing for evolution, therefore, the proponents mean either micro/macro evolution, which no reasonable biblical creationist is arguing against; or they are promoting meta-evolution, which means that no proposition or state of affairs can honestly be called “true,” not least the proposition “Evolution is true”!

C3. Hence, the evolutionary case against biblical creationism is that a logical, reasoned case for or against anything is impossible, which is absurd.

________________________________________________

[1] By “meta”-evolution I am speaking of the Darwinian/neo-Darwinian garden variety etiology (i.e., founding myth), which is generally: something creating itself from nothing (or is eternal stuffs); then, all that “Is” must be understood and explained in terms of an eternal intercourse of matter, energy, and time, from which everything in human experience owes its origin, substance, and sustention.

[2] Numerous studies have demonstrated that even in the face of heavy indoctrination in Darwinian evolution by teachers and even parents, and apart from being exposed to the doctrine of biblical creation, children are bent toward understanding the universe to be designed and created with an ultimate telos intended by its Creator, God. That is to say, people are creationists by birth (via God’s general Self-revelation) and made to be evolutionists, as counterintuitive as that is.

[3] Note: we never stand up from the toilet and turn, point, and proclaim, “That is true!” If, then, evolutionary mythology is the case, neither should we point to any proposition about reality or any given state of affairs or concept and have the audacity to state, “That is true!”

---