Churches, Science, and "Truth" Claims

'True information' from religious prophets about the present and future affairs of human civilization hasn't been very forthcoming as of late.

While at a theology conference, I heard a well-received bible scholar claim that the mission of the church is "truth telling." Alas, if only it were true. The problems with such an optimistic view of what information churches (or religious groups in general) supposedly dispense are many.

First, as is well attested in history, churches have made empirically false claims about the present state of affairs, and these being supposedly based on some exclusive channel of information (something called, "special revelation") For example, the Roman Catholic Church during the Medieval times is well known for clashing with Galileo on the structure of the solar system. Their theologians had apparently gotten it right (via special revelation to a Pope) that the Earth, not the Sun, was at the center. But that didn't turn out to be so accurate. As a more recent example, the Seventh Day Adventists and conservative baptist churches worry themselves (unnecessarily, of course) about the earth being 6,000 years old and about why Evolution must be false, though these are (bad) deductions from certain woodenly literal ways of reading the bible. Thus, their mistake is to draw deductions from (allegedly) special revelatory information encoded into biblical manuscripts, information imparted by God to the original authors on scientific topics. Those geology and biology claims are not turning out well, either, for conservative churches.

Second, even if some churches have a set of specially revealed truths, their members do not have a trustworthy method for verifying such truths in the public arena. Unlike Science, there are no reproducible methods, nor ways to quantify evidence for the various churches' claims for truth. In fact, when empirical claims are made, such as for the efficacy of prayer for healing diseases, every well-structured study has shown no cause-effect links between these claims and disease healing rates. (The most famous and well-designed one even showed a lower than expected link for heart patients.) To be accurate, however, some prayers can have benevolent effects on people's health, since they are likely (from what we can tell) particular (and benevolent) occurrences of placebo effects, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Third, leaders of churches seem especially worried about ethical truths (even more so when these concern what people do when naked.) But ethical truths are most acutely the kinds which are controversial and nebulous everywhere; for, they are not open, or at least not obviously open, to resolution on scientific grounds. (There are no Geiger counters for goodness or wickedness, for example. This is most fortunate for politicians.) But that leaders of churches would camp on ethical issues is understandable, since churches have been embarrassed by making what turned out to be false claims about empirical truths in the past, as was noted earlier.  Happily for preachers and spiritual advisers everywhere, it's far more difficult to show that certain ethical principles are outright false (as compared to empirical claims), if such can even be shown for ethical claims at all.

Finally, in terms of actionable future information, note how in the present time that no revelation-filled prophets have arisen among various religious leaders to offer solutions to pressing contemporary problems (i.e., as regards cheap engineering techniques for world energy needs; safe methods for genetically modifying plants for plentiful food supply, etc.)  Surely a great alleviation of suffering could have already been accomplished if key aspects of (almost-here-anyway) technologies would have been revealed from a few prophets reporting information communicated from the On High.  Furthermore believers claim that in biblical times prophets often foretold dire political and economic events.   Contrast this with foretelling today -- although two or three economists were (after the fact) found on record to have been clanging a warning cymbal about the possibility of the current Great Recession, every Christian and Islamic group that I'm aware of was caught flat-footed and suffered great financial loss, as did virtually everyone else. Thus, the very religious organizations which hold the possibility and precedent of prophets appearing always seem to be fresh out of them when the need is greatest!

Therefore, as an overall assessment, it is hardly surprising that people competent in assessing evidence find such pious announcements concerning "truth telling" (whether of the present or future variety) by religious leaders unconvincing.  Granted, sometimes truths are uttered by the pious.  But holding positions, even correct positions, for non sequitur or just plain bad reasons is either an indication of 1) luck, 2) ignorance, or social or political maneuverings--and that's a truth worth noting!

O.

Free will to love God, or free will from a loving God?

Dear Mr. Supposed Philosopher:

I recently read your article concerning Rob Bell's error about God and free will, and now I have a question for you. Would you agree that God's love is based on the free will he has granted us; or, on the other hand, do you agree that free will was given to us to demonstrate our love towards God?

I look upon you as very religious, and I thought a man of your deep piety could choose wisely in this conundrum.

Signed -

-- Choosy Mutha

Dear Muthalooker:

You've asked me to chose between two arguments which, from your post, seem to be as follows:

ARG. #1:
1. God gave us (created entities) free will
2. A creator giving a created entity its own free will entails the creator loves that entity.
3. Thus, God loves us.

ARG. #2:
1. God gave us (created entities) free will.
2. A creator giving a created entity its own free will entails a duty to love that creator.
3. Thus, we should love God.

First, there is nothing here that says I'm logically forced to choose one or the other argument. Indeed, since they both share their first premises, and since the conclusions of both are not controversial among Christians, then I'm not immediately worried about which conclusion is "right"--i.e., theologically responsible to hold.

Next, however, I caution that there are problems with premise #2 in BOTH arguments, since they are both open to a kind of counterexample disconnecting freewill and love.

Consider this thought experiment. It seems we humans are eventually going to construct artificially intelligent entities. Suppose we figured out not only the deep mystery of how physical brains can exhibit the property of consciousness (That was easy!), but also of how they maintain free will (No problem!).  And, as is often the case, once we got the science down, the technology was not far behind--we then build a freewill agent.

Per ARG #1, does that mean since we gave a created, artificial entity a free will, we love it? Hardly. We might simply be using it for some ends--asteroid mining, or troop moral on Mars station 7, perhaps; and, we have every intention to throw it away or "deactivate" (= kill) it when we are done with it for the assigned task. Granted, it might be unethical what we've done, but I'm merely showing a counterexample seems available to premise 2 in ARG #1.[i]

ARG #2 fares somewhat better, I think; but, even here a problem arises. Again, on supposition that we somehow build a freewill agent, must we acknowledge a duty toward it? Talk of duty is one option for a systematic ethic. But it might turn out that we're mistaken about duties--there just are no such things. Maybe there are consequences and social contracts between agents, but some free-floating, esoteric relation known as "duty" is just an old-fashioned, mistaken concept from human cultures past. Thus, your second argument works only if one believes there is such a thing as duty. There is some controversy about this in ethics, so unless we get clear on that, it looks like ARG #2's strength can't be resolved.

Overall, then, ARG #1, seems unsound; and ARG #2 is convincing only to those who think there is some special "force" or relationship independent of human preference called duty.

O.

References

[image] "Consequentialism: It's Duty Free (ethics) Tee Shirt" Zazzle.com (Accessed 6/9/11)

[i] Compare in the Old Testament where God uses Job's horrible suffering as an end (among others) to teach Satan a lesson. The Bible seems to indicate God uses people as means-to-ends quite regularly.

Rob Bell's error about God and free will

Bell's new book has the goods to make it an important work for thinking Christians to consider, but it has an unacceptable position about how God, free will, and love are related.

0. Although there are many good things in Bell's book, I won't take time here to list those. But there is one particular issue on which I think the good Reverend is in error. Apparently, others are bewitched by his position too. First, let me review where this position is, and then show how it can go wrong. Last, I'll make a case for why he (and others of piety) should have a change of mind on the matter.

1. Here's a relevant quote which showcases the worrisome position at hand:

“God has to respect our freedom to choose to the very end,” Bell argues, “even at the risk of relationship itself. If at any point God overrides, co-ops, or hijacks the human heart, robbing us the freedom to choose, then God has violated the fundamental essence of what love even is” (103-104). Therefore, “love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God’s ways for us,” says Bell. “We can have all the hell we want” (113).

I think the key premise (KP) where he and others make a mistake is this one:

KP = If at any point God overrides, co-ops, or hijacks the human heart, robbing us the freedom to choose, then God has violated the fundamental essence of what love even is.

2. Sentences of the type KP are called "conditionals." To show that a conditional is incorrect, one must show how the first part can be true while the second part is false.

2.1 Take this conditional, for example: "If an Okie is a preacher, then s/he drives a Mercedes." Part one is "An Okie is a preacher" And part two is "S/he drives a Mercedes." Now then--can I find an Okie who's a preacher, and who DOESN'T drive a Mercedes? Yes, I can. I are one. So's all the preachers I know around here; why, even the District Superintendent just drives a Buick! Thus, this particular conditional about Okies, preachers, and Mercedes can't be correct, since the first part could be true while the second part's false.

2.2. So now, could KP be shown incorrect just like the above Okie example? Yes, yes it can. Part one is, "God overrides [...] us the freedom to chose." And part two is "God has violated the fundamental essence of what love even is." Now then, can I find a case where God overrides freedom, but where God HASN'T violated the fundamental essence of what love even is?" Yes, I can. Here's how:

3. Right now I'm about to grab one of two Reese's Peanut Cutter cups from the orange package in front of me. I could use my left hand, or my right. Happily, God is subtle and knows that even a falling sparrow can greatly affect future states of affairs. Stipulate outright that God co-ops, or hijacks my human heart, robbing me the freedom to eat a Reese with my left hand (forcing, thus, my right hand to do it). Furthermore, God did so with the foresight to greatly subvert, or even outright eliminate, the high-probability risk of a busload of kids plowing into my car five days hence, killing us all. In this case God has NOT "violated the fundamental essence of what love even is." Not for me--I'm glad God did it! Not for the kids, or their parents, or their friends--they're glad God did it! God's overriding my left-handed will shows he loves me, them, and all related parties. God's motive is loving; God's outcome is good. Indeed, all parties praise him for making this tiny, imperceptible over-ride on just one sub-component of my will.

4. In conclusion, then, KP is incorrect (first part can be true, while second part false.) That's why Bell and others that think along similar lines are in error about God when they claim, "If at any point God overrides, co-ops, or hijacks the human heart, robbing us the freedom to choose, then God has violated the fundamental essence of what love even is." Indeed, one should ask God daily to override those little, throw-away sub-actions that one could care less about. Yes, I want to eat that Reese cup, oh Lord; hijack not that choice. Yet, whether by my left hand or right--not my will, but Thine alone.

O.

REFERENCES

[ * ] Rob Bell "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived" HarperOne (March 15, 2011)

The Rich Young Ruler was Right

Rethinking the encounter between Jesus and the rich young ruler

Jesus, a Jewish quasi-rabbi of the first century, spoke against materialism. He often would speak against "the rich," who stored up their possessions where moth and rust could destroy. Being wealthy, therefore, was seen as a bad thing, or if not outright bad, then it was seen as being highly risky for being in a proper relationship to God.

For example, in one story from the Bible,[1] a young man came to Jesus and, after some initial quibbling about who gets the standard of 'good' correctly attributed to whom, the young man attests that he was not a liar, nor defrauder; and, that he was generally a moral person all around. No protests arose from Jesus or others when he said this. But Jesus then tells him take up with him, and to sell off all his belongings, give the proceeds to the poor, and there would, as a consequence, be a heavenly reward. The young guy was wealthy, and therefore saddened, apparently thinking the risk of investment was not worth the odds of payoff. Was he rational to decline Jesus offer? I think so.

There's a couple of items to this story from antiquity which I find worth considering. First, compare this case to a hypothetical one where the rich young guy was found dying of a disease. His doctor tells him a cure is available, but it would cost him his net worth. Would he have sold it all? Well, if he checked it out, saw that it worked on others, and talked with people who had the same problem, got the same advice, and realized the benefit; then, almost certainly he would have--at least If modern indications of bankruptcy as tied to dire medical bills is any indication.[2] So, the young guy would seemingly make the most rational decision on a risk calculation.

Now, consider his decline of Jesus' offer. One might counter-argue that the young guy secretly knew it was the wrong decision. But that goes against the medical argument above. If it was known that the investment, or risk of investment, was worth the payoff, it's not a wrong decision. It appears that Jesus was asking the young guy to turn his brain off. (Not an unusual tactic for preachers.) But there is another angle here too: one can image the young guy dying after many years, and subsequently going to heaven. God says, "You'd have had a much more impacting life it you'd taken up Jesus' offer. That would have been a pure exercise of freewill, a virtue. Still, you did the rational thing by following the evidence available to you. And that was an exercise of reason, also a virtue. Enter in, then, my good and faithful servant."

Second, it seems a trivially easy argument to make that one should not be caught up in worldly wealth in the first century. There is no upward mobility, only the most rudimentary understanding of commerce and money management, and very unpredictable circumstances for commodity control (weather, war, etc.). It makes no sense to worry about material goods when there is so little chance that one's worry or circumstances could increase the opportunity for such goods. By analogy, it would be like telling a modern North American not to worry about being in a plane crash, but instead to plan one's trip using a plane as is convenient. Well, of course! After all, it would be patently irrational to worry about crash insurance when there's so little chance that one's circumstances would produce such a catastrophe (1 in 25 million). Likewise for a first century Palestinian to worry about materialistic advance, seeing how little chance there is for it.

Third, maybe this is why Jesus thinks it so difficult for a rich person to get into heaven: Unfortunately, the rational evidence indicates that the risk of investment of resources is NOT a rational one given the expected return. Even if it's TRUE that selling all one has to the poor and following a religious life of poverty is best, one cannot make such a decision unless there's some evidence to that effect. What's worse, anyone who is reading this is virtually assured of being counted "rich" by standards of comparison with the rest of the world:

"At the point at which people have their own home, enough food to eat, clothing to wear, running water, a sanitary sewage system, and a television, a computer, and the ability to ride in an airplane, they are in the top 20 percent of the world's inhabitants."[3]

But in a country like mine (United States) there is upward mobility by means of education, wealth management, and stable environments for business enterprise. Also, as an empirical matter, rich people tend to do far better, as do their children. Poorer children live under stress, and this has been shown to affect them and their offspring:

Children with stressed lives, then, find it harder to learn. Put pejoratively, they are stupider. It is not surprising that they do less well at school, end up poor as adults and often visit the same circumstances on their own children. [....] It is now well established that poor adults live stressful lives, and not just for the obvious reason that poverty brings uncertainty about the future. The main reason poor people are stressed is that they are at the bottom of the social heap as well as the financial one. [...It has been ] shown repeatedly that people at the bottom of social hierarchies experience much more stress in their daily lives than those at the top—and suffer the consequences in their health. Even quite young children are socially sensitive beings and aware of such things.[4]

In the end, the young guy was wealthy, and saddened, apparently thinking the risk of investment was not worth the odds of payoff. Not to him, and not to his children, or his children's children. Was he rational to decline Jesus offer? As far as evidence goes, it would seem so.


REFERENCES

[image] "Rich Young Ruler" Stained Glass Window in First Reformed United Church of Christ. (Accessed 4/12/2009)

[1] Mark 10:17-31 New Testament

[2] "For the years 2003 and 2004, just over 50 percent of all personal bankruptcies were the result of medical debt by those with health insurance. A significant percentage of those listing medical debt as the reason for their bankruptcy are 65 and older. Other groups disproportionately bankrupted by medical debt include single women raising children on low wages or who have been abandoned by their husbands who refuse to pay child support." From "Bankruptcy and Medical Debt" BCS Alliance (Accessed 4/12/2009) The stats for 2008 were no different, with half of those filing having experience a serious health problem. See "Bankruptcy Statistics 1980-2008" BankruptcyAction.com (Accessed 4/12/2009)

[3] J. Matthew Sleeth, Serve God Save the Planet Zondervan 2007. -- A bad book in most respects, with terrible logic, no documentation, and a literalistic appeal to the values of a pre-scientific, pre-techological people as a way of setting the ideals of 21st century global environmental management. See also this graph, which shows a similar distribution of income

[4] "I am just a poor boy though my story's seldom told." The Economist April 2, 2009.

O.

Brawling Christian Monks

So much for Christian love of neighbor, much less for love of the brethren in Christ. However, I was happy to see that unlike when Buddhist monks get torqued at each other, these Christian monks did not know how to fight. It was more like a scuffle with a few kick techniques from elementary school thrown in for purely defensive purposes. I think a case for pacifism can be made on Christian grounds, but it's just not clear enough to convince me that Christianity must commit one to pacifism. After all, as early as the fourth century, there were increasing numbers of Christians among the Roman soldiers, so that seems to preclude that Christianity was understood as essentially a pacifist religion, even if many early Christians did often maintain a pacifist stance.

[1] "Monks brawl at Jerusalem shrine [article and video]" BBC News November 9, 2008.

Atheism advertising on U.K. buses uses second-rate aphorism

There's been a bit of talk about some bus advertising in the U.K. which was purchased by groups friendly to atheism. But it's not much fuel for freethought. The slogan is as follows:

"There's probably no God. Now, stop worrying and enjoy your life."

One question I'd like to ask is whether this is the probability from expectation, or the probability from observation. The prior probability just says, given what we've interpreted about life's experiences, God's existence does not match our intuitions. The latter probability just says, given our observations, the data does not support the existence of God. Now just what would those observations be? Unless someone makes one of the Abrahamic religions a foil for his or her philosophy of life, there are many metaphysical systems that could account for some pet set of observations, thus allowing there to still be a God -- or, even stronger, that those observations would actually be supportive for evidence for a certain kind of God.

An example might be helpful to express my position. Lots of people think that since there is so much suffering imposed on humans by nature (diseases, disasters, etc.), and so many morally bad things imposed on humans by one another (murder, rape, etc.), this screwed-up world is not compatible with the existence of God. Well, actually the state of affairs of the world might be easily compatible with the existence of God, if God is not involved or attentive to human affairs. But that's the problem, for most people want to presume certain attributes on God -- i.e., they want to do theology -- and do so in ways that somehow define God as attentive to the affairs of humans. But that's not observation. That's faith.

I'm not sure what are the probabilities of there being a God (or not), but I'm pretty sure the atheists don't have a clue about those numbers either.

Here's another odd thing: Apparently, given the phrasing of the message, the assessment of significant probabilities of God's existence is supposed to have made people worry or not enjoy life. Is that an empirical claim? Again -- were there several correlating studies that showed people who assess the odds of God's existence as significant or high were somehow found to be more worried or more sad? Ironically, a review of more than 40 scientific studies has found quite the opposite.[1]

Look, I'm the first to point out stupid, irrational, or fanatical religious patterns of thought. I'm even paid to do so. But this bus advertising aphorism isn't doing freethinking any favors.


REFERENCES

[image] Jon Worth Euroblog (Accessed October 27, 2008)

[1] "Religious People Live Longer Than Nonbelievers" Millennium Magazine September 8, 2008 (Accessed October 27, 2008)

O.

God vs. Mammon = Mammon Wins

{ Podcast this essay } This picture (click it for a larger view) tells quite a story, especially given the U.S. as an exception to a discernible curve on religion as compared to wealth. The picture is taken from an excellent article which came out in March 2008 in The Atlantic. As Alan Wolfe, the author, puts it:

[I]intellectual fashions are fickle, and the idea of inevitable secularization has fallen out of favor with many scholars and journalists. Still, its most basic tenet—that material progress will slowly erode religious fervor—appears unassailable. Last October, the Pew Global Attitudes Project plotted 44 countries according to per capita gross domestic product and intensity of religious belief, gauged by the responses to several questions about faith (a rendition of the Pew data appears on the opposite page). The pattern, as seen in the Pew study and a number of other sources, is hard to miss: when God and Mammon collide, Mammon usually wins.[1]

Wolf explicitly notes that the U.S. is an out-lier, and stands alone as a country which is both wealthy and religious. Also it turns out that Kuwait has a similar disposition, but is not such an acute case. Perhaps the U.S. had more in common with Kuwait than its people (and, of course, Saddam Hussein) ever knew. In another comparison, it's pretty well known that the U.S. is more religious than Europe (a cause of consternation for their diplomats who try to figure out what our politicians are thinking), but it's somewhat surprising that we even out-pious some of the Latin American countries. What can be said of all this?

For some time now, I have felt that religion is actually a market-based, evolutionary phenomena. Religion grows more powerful as a cultural force when it polymorphs in order to survive within the ecosystem of ideas. Religious ideas compete for citizens' allegiance in terms of practicality and believability. An open society is productively thought of, metaphorically of course, as a host with many religious ideas. Now a flexible system of ideas tells the people what their itching ears want to hear, and if a religious system offers a pragmatic course of action and organization for living -- well, that system is more fit than the other contenders. Given time and different rates of gathering adherents (or losing apostates), soon a few religious systems will come to dominate. Christianity has shown itself remarkably flexible in many different western contexts. Moreover, South Korea seems to show that it works well in western-like contexts too; where S. Korea, I hear, has many affinities to U.S. market and cultural systems.

Again, to reiterate the point, U.S. and similar capital/cultural systems would seem to allow Christianity to survive in its current formulation so long as it addresses the day-to-day pragmatic concerns that the general populous has. Notice I am avoiding any reference to best explanation or even 'truth' here. As an illustration of why I avoid such, take as an example Mormonism. Mormonism maintains a very silly pantheon of mythological claims,[2] yet has a superb social system for family organization and for middle-class (or higher) existence. Kudos are rightly accorded them for offering a viable code of living. But as for such beliefs being evidentially warranted or true, that's an entirely different matter. But picking on a heretical sect of Christianity is easy. As a second illustration, orthodox Christianity, too, can take some lumps here as being (seemingly) silly. Sam Harris (the "baby bear" of atheism, as Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga dubbs him) gives a similar thumbnail snub of traditional doctrines:

We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common, we call them ‘religious’; otherwise, they are likely to be called ‘mad,’ ‘psychotic’ or ‘delusional.’ ‘’ To cite but one example: ‘’Jesus Christ—who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death and rose bodily into the heavens—can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad?’’ The danger of religious faith, he continues, ‘’is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy.[3]

Alas, whether mythful wishing or faithful believing, religion will be around for some time to come, contrary to the predictions of some dominant intellectuals of the 19th century. Again, a quote from Wolfe:

If proof is needed that religion will remain a dominant force in history for a long time to come, the fact that the world’s most affluent society is also well up among the faithful would seem to provide it. When the president says that his decision to invade another country was influenced by a call from God, or when school boards decide to include creationism in their curriculum, it appears safe to conclude that Americans are not living in the world envisioned by Marx or Freud.[1]

Karl Marx thought he had figured out the laws of history, but at best he probably only discerned some trends, the money-religion one showing itself in the graph above. And Sigmund Freud got one thing right: there's more going on in the mind than what we are conscious of, but the rest he got wrong, particularly about religion: God is not the Sky-Daddy we all desperately long for, but we do have longings for a transcendental something, and these longings seem to come from parts deeper than what humans are explicitly conscious of.

Alas -- physical beings that we are -- perhaps there's a genetic component influencing the vast majority of people to be religious. (Yes, I count myself among them.) Apparently, Dawkins and some of his friends didn't inherit this gene. Too bad -- I think he (and others like him) would be more fit for the contemporary environment, and thus happier, if he had.


REFERENCES

[1] "And the Winner is" The Atlantic March 2008 (Accessed May 30, 2008)

[2] As regards odd mythological claims by Mormons, these are all de-emphasized in their official web site, with the exception of claims about "the importance of eternal families" and that a utopian Zion "will be built upon this [the American] continent." (See "The Articles of Faith" Mormon Beliefs (Accessed May 30, 2008) There's lots and lots more weirdness for anyone who wants to skim the internet for summary accounts of their strange beliefs. However, few care about what their church doctrines are, only how their church addresses the practical needs of their lives. But, of course, even otherwise nominal protestant theological doctrines are pretty much ignored by parishioners.

[3] "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. By Sam Harris." New York Times Book Review Sept. 5, 2004 (Accessed May 30, 2008) It's a rare and valuable thing when an atheistic, intelligent person trash talks orthodox (as opposed to fundamentalist) Christianity. Richard Dawkins too often trashes only Christian fundamentalism, and too rarely gives explicit arguments. In contrast, "Baby bear" Harris does not make these mistakes, and thus forces theologians to defend the Christian creeds instead of the Christian cretins. Protestant theologians have been given an easy time of it for far too long, in my opinion.


O.

Statistics: Finding Love

Percent of people who meet their future spouse in Church: 17%
Percent of people who meet their future spouse via online matchmaking: 17% [1]

Odds of more and more people turning to the internet for matchmaking: high
Odds of more and more people attending Church for matchmaking: really low


REFERENCES

[1] "3 Smart Things About Online Dating" Wired Magazine May 2008, p. 30.

Contemplating the Mind of God (Pt. 1 of 2)

{Podcast this essay} God's mind is not like our mind, and the metaphysical status of God's mind is now much more mysterious than even what the ancients or medievals would claim. They had the advantage of positing a spiritual substance, roughly a "soul", that could bear the identity of minds, whether for God or for humans. But this is no longer a necessary posit, for the brain is now established as the underlying substance which bears the identity for the kinds of minds we know -- namely, human minds.

Granted human minds do not straightforwardly reduce to brains, as there is growing agreement that the structures which underlie human minds yield emergent processes. Thus, even if one were sure that the brain is the underlying preservation of identity in humans, decoding the physical substrate of each consciousness event might be extraordinarily difficult, though hopefully not impossible. Any decoding procedure would depend on how successful scientists are at deriving the physical structures from their emergent properties, and at this point how to complete such an endeavor is anything but clear.

God does not have a brain, yet God is claimed to have a mind. Yet this mind must be extraordinarily different from human minds, and not just in degree, which has been well recognized in the past. God's mind is qualitatively different, since it does not have a material substrate. And even if God's mind did have some logical or metaphysical part which was material, as is seemingly claimed by process thinkers, it has no likeness whatsoever to the material substrate otherwise known as a brain. Lymbic system, thalamic relay strobing, facial recognition module, and a host of other brain-specific attributes -- none of these even remotely apply to God. Just how, then, does one contemplate the mind of God?

A first approximation might be that we look at the behaviors of God. In the Christian tradition, reliable accounts of God are stipulated as being recorded in Scripture. What may be claimed about the mind of God is derived from the recorded acts of God. However, there are difficulties here with contemplating the mind of God on behavioristic grounds. An immediate difficulty is understanding the intentions behind behaviors. People often do things which could be interpreted in several ways. Sometimes one wonders about motivations, or miscommunications. All of these are tied to the imprecise understanding of behaviors. Even if, somehow, one were assured that a certain event were a behavior of God, understanding God's motivation or presicely how to understand God's behavior would be at least as ambiguous as understanding another human being's behavior; actually, it would be even far more difficult, since the analogy between God and humans is very limited.

A second issue concerning the mind of God is consideration of modularism. Human minds have modules that are specialized for evolutionarily relevant survival/reproductive strategies. For example, the human mind has specific modules for face recognition, and for recognition of object classes like tools, plants, animals, topography, and probably for mindedness too. Yet how would God's mind classify objects? God's mind was not formed by biological processes related to survival strategies and reproductive success. So what would be God's preference for kinds of things, much less "natural" kinds of things? It is not clear.

One possible solution would be that though the structure of God's mind is not decided by biological processes, it might be decided by evolutionary processes nevertheless. Perhaps the subset of logical possibilities for universes, what we think of as physically possible universes, is partitioned in ways that allows God to direct God's attention to so some, though not others, even though God is well aware, by virtue of being omnipotent, of all possible universes. Universes which have moral value apparently demand moral creatures, and all moral creatures are creatures with self-consciousness. Thus, universes with self-conscious creatures would be particularly attention worthy to God.

Physicists tell us that there is good reason to think that universes inflate in partitionary spaces, where some are more dynamic and complex than others. There is no sure analytic measure of complexity, much to the chagrin of intelligent design advocates, but we might posit that, if there are kinds of complexity, sentient creatures, and moreover creatures with self-consciousness -- these would be of the kind of complexity attractive to a God interested in morality. (Morality certainly sets us apart from other animals. The goat, for example, does not ponder whether eating the last tree on a small island is wrong, since it wipes out the whole plant species.) Perhaps, then, God's mind is restructured after all, albeit by his long and care-giving interaction with the various and special subsets of universes that inflate with just the right attributes to allow for the possibilities or even actuality of beings with self-consciousness. The modules of God's mind are formed by God's ontologies of preference, which means that God's values guides the structure of God's mind, and not vice versa, as is probably the case with human brains and human virtues. God may very well actively consider the various ways the logical possibilities would allow for physical incarnation of universes of interest, but only those with a non-zero probability of sentience would demand God's attention.

In sum, then, and as a caution to theologians: you can take God out of the biologically physical universes, but you can't take the evolving logical universes out of God.

REFERENCES

[image]

O.

Evolution and the uninformed U.S. American Christian

Here is the sort of of thing that really frightens me about my fellow U.S. American peers – that they have no clue about biology. Any political intuitions they have about stem cells, therefore, must be highly suspect, if not outright invalidated on that basis alone. Consider the following results from a study which came out this week in Newsweek:

Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.[1]

Although at first glance it appears as a shocker that over a third of college graduates accept “the Biblical account of creation as fact”, there is probably some room for a less dire analysis to this response. Many Christians I know would be perfectly content to say that (1) it's a fact that the world is God's creation; and (2) it's a fact that God constructed the world such that evolution is God's mechanism for the development of living things. I suspect there would be a split between these two options, with many U.S. conservative Evangelicals (the least scientifically informed group) denying the second; but with other Christian groups affirming both.

Still, this is not good news for America's voting system. A scientifically uninformed populous can only hurt itself in the long run by being clueless on even the most rudimentary foundations of biology. Moreover it's easy to manipulate people with political rhetoric and confusing information on such matters when this is their default view.

The study also notes how deeply religious American sentiments run:

A belief in God and an identification with an organized religion are widespread throughout the country, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Nine in 10 (91 percent) of American adults say they believe in God and almost as many (87 percent) say they identify with a specific religion. Christians far outnumber members of any other faith in the country, with 82 percent of the poll’s respondents identifying themselves as such. Another 5 percent say they follow a non-Christian faith, such as Judaism or Islam.[1]

Again, and as a sociological observation, the least scientifically informed group, the socially conservative U.S. American Evangelicals, are often decrying how religion is being muted in the public school system and how society is continually suppressing the exercise of Christianity. With 82% of U.S. Americans identifying themselves as Christian, it doesn't appear there could be that many “suppressors” out there to do the job!

REFERENCES

[image] "The New Monkey Trial" Salon News Jan. 10, 2005.

[1] Brian Braiker “God’s Numbers” Newsweek March 31, 2007

O.

"Praise God who Saves Both Man and Beast":Reconciling Human Responsibility and Animal Ethics

{ Audio of this Essay @ 2.27MB 20min } Why should an individual Christian hold an environmental ethic? Or, more generally, why should the community of Christians value the creation? It is sometimes claimed that certain members within the biosphere other than human beings have intrinsic moral value, and should thus be afforded certain protections--namely, that those members should be protected from being killed. If this is correct, then the theologian should construct a Christian environmental ethic which can justify this claim. I do, in fact, think it correct that certain members within the biosphere other than humans have intrinsic moral value; therefore, in this essay I will lay a foundation for such a construction. I will first discuss what constitutes 'the image of God' in humans and when that image applies to a human fetus. Next, I will argue how some species of animals gain the same type of value as does a human fetus. Finally, I will show why this value affords these species the same protections we afford a fetus, which is essential to constructing a Christian environmental ethic, and which is consistent with John Wesley's oft quoted phrase, "Praise God who saves both man and beast"[1]




I

My first foray into this matter concerns an argument regarding the preservation of the human species. By destroying plants and animals, I grant that we might be destroying resources which we shall need to preserve our own species in the future. This preservation may be of our quality of life, or in more dire cases, of our quantity of life--i.e., that there are a number or suitable number of humans in existence at all. Preservation of human species is taken to be the highest value. Therefore, we are concerned to care for our bio-environment because of its utilitarian value for our own survival.

This position can be questioned on several grounds. It assumes that any action which is a means of preserving human existence is of value. This leads one to review why human existence has value all. The Christian answers that any creature made in the image of God has intrinsic value. Humans are made in God's image; hence, they have intrinsic value.

But why should one think that humans have more intrinsic value than animals? After all, God created them both. One might worry that anything God creates has intrinsic value. God created the animals; such as the Platypus, the Cobra, and the Tarantula; therefore, these too, and likewise all the other animals have intrinsic value.

The Christian answers that all creatures made in the image of God are creatures with more value than those not made in the image of God. Humans are made in the image of God. Hence, humans are creatures with more value than those not made in the image of God. In contrast, animals are not made in the image of God. Hence, humans have more value than animals.

A worrisome issue is what constitutes 'the image of God.' Theologians disagree on this. The Christian can respond generally that whatever 'the image of God' refers to, it is what separates us from animals. In this essay, I will be committed to the following for identifying the image of God in a creature: I will hold that a creature's having both freewill and consciousness is necessary and sufficient for a creature having the image of God. I am aware that these have been separately argued. For example, one of a somewhat Calvinistic bent might find freewill to be an unnecessary component of any creature manifesting the image of God. I acknowledge the depth and power of such arguments, but the freewill/determinism problem is still an open one. Thus, by my own intuition and within the greater Wesleyan-Arminian tradition, it is not unreasonable to hold that humans are free and that this is part and parcel of the image of God. Wesley himself notes that "God's image upon man consists in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness."[2] Consciousness and freewill are essential for these higher order attributes, especially the last two "value" attributes. Furthermore, just as consciousness and freedom can come in degrees, it looks like Wesley allows the image of God to admit of degrees as well.[3] Taken together, both freedom and consciousness stand as very important concerns of most Wesleyan thinkers, and neither are they logically incompatible. The application of these components, however, does have its troublesome side.

One pivotal point in the debate on abortion concerns whether or not one murders a creature made in the image of God. Clearly, after just a few weeks of pregnancy, one kills a human being--that is, kills a creature of the biological species of Homo Sapiens. However, it is not the case that all Homo Sapiens manifest the image of God, since one subset of Homo Sapiens--I am speaking in this case of a very, early stage fetus before instantiation of brainwave activity--has none of the properties which I have heretofore claimed constitute the image of God; that is, has neither freedom nor consciousness.

A troublesome issue arises here. If we have no reason to justify a belief that a creature instantiates the image of God, then it would appear that we are not morally accountable to that creature. In the case of a very early stage fetus, we note a lack of consciousness and freedom. Thus, for some, it might appear that we are not morally accountable to a fetus, this being its status. Hence, the argument goes, we may treat the fetus as we would any other resource. So one would apply this to what was stated earlier in the essay. As earlier, one understands that creatures made in the image of God have more value than those not made in the image of God. A fetus is not made in the image of God, so a person, as a Homo Sapiens manifesting the image of God, has more value than a fetus, a Homo Sapiens which does not manifest the image of God.




II

We are rightfully concerned and impassioned about such arguments. It is a straightforward claim that an otherwise healthy fetus, even if currently not instantiating the image of God, is on a teleological trajectory (in the biological sense, not Aristotelian sense) to fully actualize said, unless that trajectory is interfered with. The Christian position is that we have a responsibility to protect this trajectory, though recently there has arisen fierce Church debate on the extent and practice of this responsibility.

There are a host of approaches and issues in analyzing the responsibilities of a community to its unborn members. Some debates are concerned with whether and under what conditions it is permissible to end the life of the innocent, the unborn being among this class. Other debates on the subject center around property ownership, labor investment, and genetic contribution. Yet other debates are concerned with freedom of movement and the lack of or priority of rights among those accounted members of the community. While these are all vibrant and ongoing approaches to investigating a community's responsibilities to its unborn members, let me develop an approach which uses a concept compatible with what we have earlier noted constitutes the image of God (i.e., freedom and consciousness).

Earlier, I had reviewed a position whereby it was concluded that a person, as a Homo Sapiens manifesting the image of God, has more value than a fetus, a Homo Sapiens which does not manifest the image of God. It would be incomprehensible to hold a very early term fetus responsible for making decisions and acting upon them, if for no other reason than that in the early embryonic developmental stages there is at best only a spinal stem and certainly no neuro-brainwave activity. Does this show that from an image of God standpoint there is no moral responsibility to the fetus?

Allow me to draw a distinction here. There are both micro and macro trajectories in biology. A micro trajectory is interfered with just when an individual member of a species dies before physical maturation, such as when a fetus is aborted, or such as when a natural disaster causes fetal death in utero. A macro trajectory is interfered with just when there are no members of a species left to reproduce, such as when an asteroid hit the earth millions of years ago and, fortunately for current dwellers in Montana,[4] the Tyrannosaurus Rex died off.

Let us consider the micro trajectory case in order to answer the question concerning our moral responsibility to a fetus. At the very least, an early stage individual fetus potentially instantiates the image of God. An individual animal, at any stage, does not instantiate the image of God.[5] Something has intrinsic moral value just when it potentially or actually instantiates the image of God.[6] The importance of affirming this position is that we can immediately see why an individual fetus has intrinsic value and why an individual (non human) animal does not. When we interfere with the micro trajectory of a fetus, we interfere with the image of God actualizing itself in history. (Hegel would be proud of such talk.) No one should interfere with--indeed, one should actively assist to maximize the image of God, and hence the Kingdom of God, breaking into history. Interfering with the micro trajectory of an unborn child subverts this gracious process of God; hence, no one should interfere with the micro trajectory of a fetus-at least not in as much as doing so would justifiably impede God's work.

The above argument for why the fetus should not be aborted is an argument about a micro trajectory. We also make such arguments about when it is right or wrong to interfere with the micro trajectories of juveniles, such as when police actions or criminal penalties have capital consequences.[7] Thus, just as we make decisions on when to halt the biological trajectories of human beings, so we also make decisions on when to halt the biological trajectories of animals. In the case of humans, interference with even micro trajectories has moral import. But what of the case for animals? What shall we make of interference in their micro and macro trajectories?




III

Without argument, I am willing to assert that it is morally permissible for persons to interfere with the micro trajectory of animals. We do research on them, for example, and use them as means to our ends under many different circumstances, whether for food, fun, or pharmaceuticals. I think we do have a responsibility not to treat animals cruelly, though this is an indirect duty, for this responsibility is justified by the tendency of cruelty to animals to lead to mistreatment of humans. The link between animal behavior and human valuation seems to be recognized even in the Old Testament where a bull which has killed a human is commanded to be put to death.[8] Furthermore, Wesley himself lodges our duty to treat animals with mercy as a reflection of how God directs mercy:

Nothing is more sure, than that as "the Lord is loving to every man," so "his mercy is over all his works;" all that have sense, all that are capable of pleasure or pain, of happiness or misery.... And, suitably to this, he directs us to be tender of even the meaner creatures; to show mercy to these also.[9]

In one sense, I am not an animal rights advocate, for I am not arguing for individual animals as having intrinsic value and for our moral accountability to them on this basis. In another sense, however, I am an animal rights advocate, for I will argue for whole species as having intrinsic value and for our moral accountability to them on that basis. After all, these are two very different positions, and it would be fallacious to argue, for example, that since I do not have moral accountability to any given individual of a species, I therefore do not have moral accountability to the whole species.[10]

Wesley held that only humans are "capable of God" and that "this is the specific difference between man and brute; the great gulf which they cannot pass over." But he seems to base his position on the following evidence: "We have no ground to believe that they are, in any degree, capable of knowing, loving, or obeying God."[11] In considering the micro trajectories of animals, this evidence seems incontrovertible. They have not been found so capable. But in considering their macro trajectories, the matter is not so clear.

Why then do Christians justifiably have a responsibility to whole species? Here is why--because of what evolutionary processes in biology have already led to. Over the course of time, a class of primates, which were not persons, evolved into persons; selective pressures within the creation, pressures designed and implemented by God, I hasten to note, led to creatures made in the image of God in at least one known instance--ours. God wants us to protect and value creation on the macro trajectory level, because these selective pressures are still active. I find this view to be a coherent and natural extension of what Wesley holds God's ecological place to be:

He is the Source of the lowest species of life, that of vegetables, as being the Source of all the motion on which vegetation depends. He is the Fountain of the life of animals; the Power by which the heart beats, and the circulating juices flow. He is the Fountain of all the life which man possesses in common with other animals. And if we distinguish the rational from the animal life, he is the Source of this also.[12]

We have seen where the fountain of God's action in the biological processes have lead in one instance-to Homo Sapiens. Other species are still in the process, and could eventually evolve into creatures likewise manifesting the image of God. These species need not evolve just into Homo Sapiens, of course, but into creatures whose neural anatomy could, nevertheless, support personhood. This is analogous to the case of the human fetus, except on a species level. Just as we see a micro trajectory moving toward personhood in a human fetus, we can also detect a macro trajectory moving toward personhood in animal species; or, at the very least, we have some biological evidence that such macro trajectories are operant in God's creation.

We see clues of this macro trajectory in the Biblical text itself. Animals are included in metaphorical descriptions of the eschaton, because they are fellow creatures moving toward the image of God. Very much to Wesley's credit, even he recognizes this as a live possibility:

May I be permitted to mention here a conjecture concerning the brute creation? What, if it should then please the all-wise, the all-gracious Creator to raise them higher in the scale of beings? What, if it should please him, when he makes us "equal to angels," to make them what we are now, -- creatures capable of God; capable of knowing and loving and enjoying the Author of their being? If it should be so, ought our eye to be evil because he is good? However this be, he will certainly do what will be most for his own glory.[13]

The whole creation groans, to use the biblical metaphor, because humanity has lost its accountability towards protecting and enhancing this process. Creation suffers a slowdown toward its telos (in both the biological and theological sense) because we do not recognize our own role in this process; indeed, we actually impede it by our inaction. We are now beginning to learn what we can do to manipulate, thus guide or destroy this process through genetic engineering.[14] But through reason and scripture, and indeed through our own Wesleyan tradition, we are now also able to see what we should do. Our importance as the first born among conscious creatures is in our being cultivators of personhood for species other than our own, in our being midwives for further manifestations of the image of God in the world, in our being administrators for individual instances of God's spirit breaking into history. This, then, is how to reconcile human responsibility and animal ethics. This pictures again Adam's supremely important role in the garden and his husbandry toward all organic creation.

Let us take stock. The advantage of this position solves three problems: First it acknowledges what the vast majority within Christian tradition has maintained, that abortion is morally wrong. Second, it accounts for our moral latitude in using animals as a means toward our end, but limits that latitude from using whole species as means to our end. Finally, it can give us interpretive advantages in dealing with otherwise vexing Biblical passages which present animals as present at the eschaton. I close with one such passage here from Isaiah:

And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,
And the leopard will lie down with the kid,
And the calf and the young lion and the yearling together;
And a little boy will lead them.
Also the cow and the bear will graze;
Their young will lie down together;
And the lion will eat straw like the ox.
And the nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra,
And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den.
They will not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,
For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord
As the waters cover the sea.[15]

Of course the Homo Sapiens children are not afraid! In the very distant future, and with love and fellowship, it will be said of those children, "they come from the ancient species of shepherds."





REFERENCES

[image] public domain

1. This phrase is sprinkled throughout Wesley's Journal. All quotations from John Wesley are taken from The Wesley Center of Applied Theology (Northwest Nazarene University)

2. John Wesley's Notes on the Bible - Genesis.

3. As Wesley writes, "Yet his government of himself by the freedom of his will, has in it more of God's image, than his government of the creatures" [italics added for emphasis]. John Wesley's Notes on the Bible - Genesis.

4. Paleontology Museum of the Rockies. (Bozeman, MT)

5. Again I point out that Wesley allows of the image of God to come in degrees. (See above note) I am rendering the issue in discrete packets, that animals either have God's image or not, and assuming the worst case, rather than rendering the issue as a continuous spectrum. The latter is a more optimistic view, and perhaps friendlier to Wesley's position. If it turns out that animals do have some degree of the image of God in them, this makes my argument for a certain type of responsibility to them even easier to make.

6. We will also allow that God instantiates his own image, just as we allow that any set counts as a subset of itself.

7. Victor L. Streib "The Juvenile Death Penalty Today: Death Sentences and Executions for Juvenile Crimes", January 1, 1973 - June 30, 2000 (Ohio Northern University)

8. Exodus 21:28-32.

9. The General Deliverance - Rom. 8:19-22.

10. This is known as the informal fallacy of composition.

11. The General Deliverance - Rom. 8:19-22.

12. Spiritual Worship - 1 John 5:20.

13. The General Deliverance - Rom. 8:19-22.

14. Technological advancement might also lead us to wonder if the creation of artificially intelligent sentients would further maximizes God's image in creation, and thus entail a further husbandry responsibility on our part.

15. Isaiah 11:6-9. NASB (with "yearling" from NIV)

O.