All It Will Take Is One

Materialism is our sworn enemy.  Materialists (those who hold to materialism) believe that our universe is closed, that all of reality can be summarized thusly: in the beginning were the particles.

So begins the creed of those who hold to the supremacy of particles, of mass and energy, with all the fervency of the radical faithful. Like the barbarians of old sweeping through the city gates, the materialist Vandals have left nothing but destruction in their wake, offering nothing of value to our civilization. The idea that we just are particles bumping together in the dark night has grim consequences.

Consequences. All ideas have them. And what hath materialism wrought? At bottom, if it is true, we live in a valueless world. We humans all have this sense that when we look within ourselves to consider our own experiences that we are valuable. That we should be taken seriously because we take ourselves seriously. I have thoughts, beliefs, intentions, desires, and goals. I am about something. But particles are not about anything. How could a collection of particles have desires, beliefs, and goals?

So what’s the payoff for materialists? Why has Western civilization allowed itself to be been overrun by this metaphysical barbarian that devalues life? Because particles do not require anything of us. Particles are indifferent to my lifestyle. Particles don’t care if I give full rein to my passions. And let’s be honest: it usually comes down to sex. Particles are uninterested in what I do with my various body parts. It is often said that denial is not just a river in Egypt. Given the choice between a Creator who might make claims on my life because, oh, say he actually made me and apathetic specks of matter, many will have strong psychological reasons to deny God and to choose valuelessness.

Given these powerful psychological causes, we can now see why materialists exhibit such overt vitriol toward Intelligent Design (ID). All it will take is one bona fide demonstration of design in nature, and the materialist project will be over. Finished. And they know it.

In the ID research community we think that we have much good empirical evidence of design in nature. We infer from the evidence, for example, the existence of functionally specified information encoded in DNA in every one of your trillion cells, give or take a few hundred billion. Look around you. Every instance of functional or specified information comes from a mind, not a chance or law-like process. Observe, for example, billboards, the software in your smartphone, magazines, Mt. Rushmore, and the lyrics or melody in any song.  These are all instances of information specified for a purpose. As Stephen Meyer points out is his book, Signature in the Cell, we argue in the same way that Darwin did – we observe processes in nature that are now in operation. Chance and the laws of physics or chemistry did not create Mt. Rushmore  – an intelligent mind did.

So we have evidence. Positive, empirical evidence for design. Many more evidences could be given, but this is sufficient to make my point: one single instance of design in nature and its nah, nah, nah, nah, hey, hey, hey…good-bye materialism.

And good riddance.

Waging War on an Enemy in the Camp

An enemy has overrun the camp.

We are captives, POW's, from a series of battles that was won decades ago by an enemy that is at once both hidden and obvious. It is obvious, because we can see its affects all around us. It is hidden because we all have patterns of thought influenced by this enemy that we don't even realize.

Worst of all, we have allowed this enemy to overtake us. In a sort of spiritual Stockholm Syndrome, we have come to admire and adore this enemy that has no good plans for the Church.

We have not been vigilant and have ignored Paul's admonition to play defense in Colossians (2:8) by not being taken captive by deceptive philosophy. In another passage Paul switches from defense to offense, still using this key word, "captive." In 2 Cor 10:3-5, he tells us to "take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (As an aside, this verse is usually taken out of context to mean we should capture impure thoughts, etc., but in context it is clear that Paul is referring to arguments, speculations, and cultural strongholds that hold sway over people's minds)

From this moment on I am hereby declaring war on this enemy that has infiltrated our ranks in the Church and in our culture.

We have been overrun by naturalism and materialism - the idea that the only thing that exists is the physical universe and no such person as the Christian God exists. (Materialism does not mean too much shopping, but that the world is only made of material with no spiritual aspects)

Now, I said before that this enemy is both hidden and obvious. The obvious aspects are, well, obvious. All of the major influential organs of our culture are committed to this worldview: the universities, Hollywood, major media outlets, legal system. We hear the message in a thousand different ways that all we are is body without soul. My purpose in this post is not outline all of the various and sundry ways that the overriding philosophy of our culture is naturalistic.

What I want us to see is the more hidden aspect of materialism and naturalism, for many of you have already turned me off. For you may be thinking: I go to church. I haven't bought into this naturalism stuff. I believe in God. He's real! Well, let me ask you - a representative of Western Christianity - a few rhetorical questions (meaning I don't expect an answer - you're welcome to, but it's unlikely I'll hear you...or put them in the comments below):

• What is your view of the universe? Is it a system that runs efficiently, sort of like a machine? Did God set it up at the beginning and then just let it run?
• Do you think in categories of natural vs supernatural?
• When you pray about a particular topic weighing on your heart do you secretly expect that nothing will really happen?
• Is science the study of the natural world and physical processes within the world only?
• Do you, or your denomination, see the Scriptures as perhaps true with regards to spiritual things, but maybe not in historical or scientific aspects?
• Do you think that all of your thoughts are generated in your brain? 
• When Jesus promises us things like he does in John 1:7, does the promise die a death of a thousand qualifications?
• When you think of miracles in the Bible, such as the parting of the Red Sea or the Burning Bush, do you tend to think of natural processes that could have caused this to happen?
• If you believe in God as Creator, do perhaps think of God doing it strictly through secondary causes or indirect means?
• Do you listen to neuroscientists ("brain scientists") to tell you what you "really" are?
• Do you tend to see sin as a product of bad environment or poor education or possibly as an unhealthy psyche?
• Are psychiatrists and psychologists the key to our "sin problem?"
• Is the presence of natural evil (i.e. earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes) just due to the natural forces at work in the physical world?

Most of us Western Christians have been trained to answer the above questions with a yes! The problem is that the answer from the Christian worldview to all of them is no! Maybe you only answered yes to a few of these. Even if you answered yes to only one question, then to some extent you have bought into materialism/naturalism, a hollow and deceptive philosophy.

The Bible knows nothing of this separation between natural and supernatural. Biblical categories are human vs superhuman (see the Introduction to Craig Keener's excellent work, Miracles). Because of naturalism we tend to devalue the work of God. Oh, we say that we believe that God is a miracle worker and that he created the universe, but what did he really do? Do we believe in a passive God who somehow only operates hands-off, by letting other things do his dirty work?

You see, in the Bible God takes all of the credit. He causes the grass to grow and waters the earth (Ps 104). He alone created the heavens (Is 40:26). God is the one who works wonders (Ps 77:14). He even creates natural disasters (Is 45:7).

Our acceptance of naturalism, even though we may not realize it, has caused us to take glory away from God. Contrary to what our culture teaches, Scripture tells us that he is the initiator and sustainer of the entire created order (Gen 1, John 1, Col 1:15-17). He is responsible. The buck stops with him, not with natural laws or created things. 

So, my challenge to you is to be open to the ways in which we have been taken captive by a hollow and deceptive philosophy. Naturalism has nothing to offer us. It is completely bankrupt as a philosophy. It makes us think less of ourselves, less of others, less of creation, and less of God. Much moral evil has resulted from the acceptance of this insidious idea. For this reason I am declaring war on naturalism and materialism, and this will continue to be a theme on my blog.

We have been overrun. Let's take back our camp for the glory of God.

Can Science Prove that God Doesn't Exist?

Science is limited. It is like a strong dog on a chain. It rules its own area legitimately, but no more. Science is powerful and has brought us a tremendous amount of knowledge about the way in which God has set up the regularities of nature. Yet it is on a leash...

Scientists of the modern era, however, think that the dog has been let loose to roam the neighborhood. Many in our culture will claim that science is, in fact, the only way to gain knowledge. For example, Alex Rosenberg, in his book The Atheist's Guide to Reality, defines scientism thus, "....the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything; that science's description of the world is correct in its fundamentals..."  If science didn't tell it to you, you can't know it according to those represented by Rosenberg.

If I may be permitted to switch my metaphors, we may think of science as a metal detector. A young boy goes down to the beach with his metal detector and comes back with a delightful collection of soda tabs, lost earrings, and spare change. Is anyone in his family surprised that the boy found metal with his metal detector? Of course not! Notice,though, that his collection did not include sea shells, beach balls, or sand crabs. A metal detector finds what is within is capabilities.

The same is true for science. It can only find what is within its capabilities. Science goes down to the beach to study the natural world, and low and behold!, when it returns it reports to us regularities and elements of that natural world. For a scientist to proclaim that there is nothing beyond the natural world would be just like our young boy to insist that the whole world is made of metal.

Amazing how we would quaintly pat the young boy on the head with a knowing look to the other adults in the room, yet we listen to some scientists or thinkers who say the logical equivalent and nod our heads up and down in deferential agreement.

The next time you hear someone say that science is the only path to knowledge, simply pat him on the head and tell him (or her) how quaint he (or she) is.

So, can science prove that God doesn't exist? Well, is God a physical being? Not according to orthodox Christianity. And if God is not physically a part of the natural world, then he is beyond the capabilities of science and cannot be ruled out by science. Returning to the dog metaphor, science cannot investigate anything outside of its territory. It may bark threateningly, but it is restrained no matter how hard it tries not to be.

I do think, however, that God has inscribed in the regularities of nature evidence of his having designed it, and that science can detect these inscriptions. But that is a topic for another day...

Everything Physical is Physics...

...but not everything is physical.

This is becoming my standard answer to my students when they ask, "What is physics?" You see, in the high school in which I teach, every student must take physics (thanks to this policy, I have a job!). So I initially get a lot of questions about what it is that they will be learning. My answer tries to point out to them that everything in the physical universe must obey the laws of physics, which we will be studying. We live in an orderly universe governed by law. This insight is astonishing in its own right: why is the universe orderly? This can lead to some very interesting conversations about design.

My point is a little different, however, when I respond, "Everything physical is physics, but not everything is physical." We live in a materialistic culture in which we are told in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways that we are nothing but our bodies. Our minds are reduced to our brains. Our feelings to chemical reactions. Our morality to evolutionary bric-a-brac.

So by saying that not everything is physical, I hope to put a stone in their shoe that there is more to this world than just physical stuff. For example:

• Souls
• Mental states
• God
• Information

None of these are physical, but they are just as real as a rock. I don't bring all of this up unless someone asks, but most students don't take the bait. Every once in a while, however, I get a student genuinely interested, and then we can launch into a meaningful conversation.

Just one more small way to push back the tide...

Less of a Man?

In this year's London Olympics, a runner by the name of Oscar Pistorius, who is a double-amputee and runs with prostheses that look like blades, attempted to qualify for the 400-m men's final.  He did not make it to the big race, but Oscar will go down as an unforgettable character in these games.  A little controversy surrounded him initially as critics wondered if his prostheses would give him an advantage.  In the end he was allowed to run.

This situation got me to thinking about what it means to be human.  Here's why.  The materialist message we get from our culture, especially from the scientific community, is that we are nothing but matter, meat and bones all the way down.  No soul or spirit that can't be accounted for by the firing of neurons or shifting of chemicals.

Here's the thought I had in relation to Oscar and this materialist message: if it's true that all we are is ultimately meat robots, then when a person loses a limb and becomes an amputee, then it is absolutely true that he is less of a man.  He is not the man he was before.  His body has changed, and since all he is is a body, then he's not the same.  He is less.  But this doesn't seem to match our own sense of ourselves. 

What if the materialists are wrong and we are more than sum of our parts?  Then Oscar's body has indeed changed, but he is not less of a person.  Notice I used the word person here and not man as used previously.  If we have souls then our bodies may change, but our person-hood remains unaffected.  By the way, this accounts for a phenomenon that we all notice as we age.  Clearly as we advance in years our bodies change: we get shorter, greyer, heavier, ricketier, and more forgetful.  But we still have this sense that we are the same person.  This body that we animate gets older, but we "still feel like a teenager," as older folk are often heard to say.

All of this to say that if we are nothing but physical stuff, we do indeed change and become less over time.  This materialist diminution of ourselves plays right into the hand of the euthanasia crowd.  If we are less, why keep us around?  But if the theists are right (those of us who believe in a God), then we can account for personal continuity regardless of how our outer shell is affected by the world.  God has created us not only with a body, but also a soul that animates that body.

So maybe Oscar the man is not less of a person after all.