In his book The God Delusion Richard Dawkins presents what he call "The Ultimate 747 Argument" to explain why he believes that God most certainly does not exist. The argument from improbability and its trademark image of the 747 is usually put forth by creationists or intelligent design proponents to argue for God's existence. Dawkins turns the argument on its head and posits that the argument from improbability actually is a good argument that God does not exist.
The argument from improbability and its image of the Boeing 747 and the scrapyard are credited to Fred Hoyle and simply put "the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance of a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747" (Dawkins 113). The same metaphor could be used to argue against the evolution or higher life forms like the odds or a hurricane putting together a live parakeet, a person, or a Paramecium. But Dawkins looks at this argument and asks 'what is the probability of the existence of God?' by questioning the idea that God is a simple being (if not the simplest of all beings). Many theologians, especially Richard Swinburne, have asserted the belief that God must be simple because He consists of a single substance (Dawkins 147-8). Dawkins argues that God, if He exists, must be more complex than the phenomena he has been posited to explain, namely matter, life, and intelligence.
So how does something's complexity affect the probability of its existence? It is assumed that the more complex a being, the less probable its existence becomes. Simple things are simply more likely to occur than complex things. This assumption is true more often than not. For example, on the atomic scale, hydrogen, the simplest element (just a single proton orbited by one electron) is more likely to be found than oxygen (with its eight protons, eight neutrons, and eight electrons. And oxygen is more likely to be found than uranium (containing 92 protons, 146 neutrons, and 92 electrons). On a larger scale we see the same pattern. Here on earth simple sedimentary or igneous rock is more likely to be found than organic life; and simple organic life is more likely to be found than intelligent beings. It follows quite easily that an immensely complex intelligence capable of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence must be very improbable indeed.
I agree with Dawkins on both points. A being "capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple" (Dawkins 149). And such a complex being must be immensely improbable. However, I don't think that admitting this presents nearly as big of a problem as Dawkins suggests.
Let's start with question of God's complexity. For centuries man has thought of God as the simplest explanation for the things we see. To answer the question 'Where did all the animals and plants come from?' we say: 'God made them' (Gen. 1:20-5). We now know that the diversity of life comes from natural selection acting on mutations to shape organisms more fit to survive and reproduce in a given set or range of conditions. In addition to natural selection other processes such as gene flow, genetic drift, and chance (such as a mass extinction or an unlucky misstep on a high tree branch) have also helped to shape Earth's current diversity of flora and fauna. But this explanation is far from simple. It is actually more complicated than believing that God spoke the animals into existence. And if you look at any other branch of knowledge you will see that the closer we come to the truth of the nature of things the more complex our explanations become.
We used to think that there were only four 'elements' in the world: air, water, fire, and earth. We now know that there are at least 110 different elements, a plethora of energy forms, subatomic particles, gravitons, etc. that make up the physical reality. We used to think that the human body was controlled and influenced by the proportions of four humors: blood, black bile, green bile, and mucus. We now know that the body has those fluid plus hundreds of hormones, proteins, electrical impulses, and ionic concentrations that control our inner workings. As our knowledge of the world increases it appears that our answers are not becoming simpler, but are becoming more complex.
Yes, God is very likely to be highly complex. But if the pattern we see with biology, chemistry, and physics of moving from simple answers to more complex explanations is true for theology as well we should expect to see that God is not simple, but is the most complex being possible. Furthermore, the progressive revelation of the Bible has painted us a picture of a God with increasing complexity, from the simple Yahweh of the Old Testament to the complex intertwining of the Father, Son, and Spirit of the New Testament. God as an immensely complex being makes perfect sense to the Christian believer.
What happens if we acknowledge that God is a very highly complex being and accept the assumption that complex things are less likely to occur than simple things? To put it shortly: nothing. Dawkins, and the creationists and intelligent design believers, make use of the sneaky art of statistics to support their cases. For instance, there are six crucial constants that must be fine-tuned to very exact numbers for matter to exist; and must be further fine-tuned to allow life to exist (this is known as the Anthropic Principle). The odds that those numbers are tuned to created the universe we see is very, very, very small. But the fact is those constants are tuned to create a universe like the one we see. Along the same line of reasoning as Dawkins employs I can argue pretty well that you do not exist.
The odds that the combination of genes from your parents would create your genome are very low (like 1 in 10 million low). Now the odds that the combination of genes from your grandparents would create your parents' genomes are similar to those of the previous calculation. The odds that your parents met and married are probably somewhere around 1 in 10 million. Now repeat the last two odds for the probability that your great-grandparents genomes combined to form your grandparents and the odds that your grandparents met. So what is the probability that you exist? One in 1070. I normally round off at the tenth decimal place so for me the probability that you exist is essentially zero. And if you are one of the few people that round off at the seventy-first decimal place, I can easily make the odds even smaller by calculating the odds your great-great-grandparents met and so forth back to the beginning of time. However, hopefully you are not quite convinced by the overwhelming odds against your own existence. That's because no matter how great the statistical odds are against you existing the fact remains that you do exist. And actually existing trumps probability every time.
So Dawkins is right. God is improbably complex, but so are you. And if the high probability against a being of your complexity existing doesn't make you doubt that you exist it shouldn't make you doubt that God exists. In fact, this argument can contend that if God is the most complex being possible (and He might possible be) then there can only be one of them. And you end up with monotheism instead of atheism. So it seems that Dawkins' argument from improbability shows us practically nothing about whether or not God exists and more about why we should be wary of blindly trusting probabilities.
Reference:
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2006.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
The Cradle of Christianity
Today I was able to escape from the cutting edge of marine geology long enough to visit a museum exhibit I have been excited to see since I heard of its existence. The exhibition, entitled The Cradle of Christianity, is on display until 15 April 2007, and brings with it items from the Holy Land to illustrate the connection between Judaism and Christianity. I would like to highlight some of the more interesting artifacts I saw there.
The first part of the exhibition attempted to bring into focus the background in which Christ's life, death, and resurrection were played out. Here I saw ossuaries with names common to the time period: Mary, Joseph, and Jesus (an ossuary is a decorated box to store the bones of the dead after the flesh has rotted away). It is somewhat hard for us in the modern age to imagine that Jesus was a common name in the Judea in the first century AD. Also on display were dishes and cups that were very common in Jesus' day. Although these were probably not the dishes used at the Last Supper, it is likely that dishes like these were used by Jesus and his disciples.
There was also a grisly reminder of the Roman method of crucifixion: an ankle bone with the nail still embedded. Although we know that crucifixions occurred during the first century, this ankle bone is the only direct evidence of this method of execution. Next to the ankle bone is the only known physical evidence that a certain governor of Judea lived: Pontius Pilate. At some point Pilate had an inscription made dedicating a piece of stonework to the current emperor of Rome: Tiberius. Next to the aforementioned stone is another ossuary which at one time contained the bones of Joseph Caiaphas, the High Priest who was instrumental in getting Christ executed.
On down I was able to enter a darkened room and look at a few fragments of a document. Those pieces were written by scribes in the second century AD and were preserved in caves around the Dead Sea. That's right, on display for the first time anywhere was a fragment of the Temple Scroll; the longest of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Once I left the darkened room I entered a recreation of an early church; which closely resembled the Jewish synagogues of the time.
The last part of the exhibit focused on the pilgrimages early Christians made. It seems that relics were very common back then and trips to familiar places like Golgotha and Gethsemane as well as Jericho and the Sea of Galilee were encouraged.
Although I thought the highlight of the visit for me would be the Temple Scroll; I found when I left that it was not. Yes, the Temple Scroll is an ancient manuscript seen publicly for the first time ever, but the room was so dark it was hard to see the scroll at all. No, what really struck me was the ossuary of Caiaphas. It wasn't behind glass or in a darkened room and when I read the translation I thought to myself, "Who's Joseph Caiaphas?" And then it dawned on me: that's the High Priest who wanted Jesus crucified! It's difficult to explain, but at that moment I felt a renewed sense of awe as I realized all over again that the stories of the Gospels aren't actually stories, but are actual accounts of actual events. There before me was physical evidence that Caiaphas was a real person and was actually the High Priest who put Jesus on trial. It was truly an amazing experience to stand the day after Easter in front of the ossuary of one of the people responsible for Jesus' death, but to know that there is no ossuary labeled "Jesus of Galilee, son of Joseph" because the tomb is, and forever shall be, empty.
The first part of the exhibition attempted to bring into focus the background in which Christ's life, death, and resurrection were played out. Here I saw ossuaries with names common to the time period: Mary, Joseph, and Jesus (an ossuary is a decorated box to store the bones of the dead after the flesh has rotted away). It is somewhat hard for us in the modern age to imagine that Jesus was a common name in the Judea in the first century AD. Also on display were dishes and cups that were very common in Jesus' day. Although these were probably not the dishes used at the Last Supper, it is likely that dishes like these were used by Jesus and his disciples.
There was also a grisly reminder of the Roman method of crucifixion: an ankle bone with the nail still embedded. Although we know that crucifixions occurred during the first century, this ankle bone is the only direct evidence of this method of execution. Next to the ankle bone is the only known physical evidence that a certain governor of Judea lived: Pontius Pilate. At some point Pilate had an inscription made dedicating a piece of stonework to the current emperor of Rome: Tiberius. Next to the aforementioned stone is another ossuary which at one time contained the bones of Joseph Caiaphas, the High Priest who was instrumental in getting Christ executed.
On down I was able to enter a darkened room and look at a few fragments of a document. Those pieces were written by scribes in the second century AD and were preserved in caves around the Dead Sea. That's right, on display for the first time anywhere was a fragment of the Temple Scroll; the longest of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Once I left the darkened room I entered a recreation of an early church; which closely resembled the Jewish synagogues of the time.
The last part of the exhibit focused on the pilgrimages early Christians made. It seems that relics were very common back then and trips to familiar places like Golgotha and Gethsemane as well as Jericho and the Sea of Galilee were encouraged.
Although I thought the highlight of the visit for me would be the Temple Scroll; I found when I left that it was not. Yes, the Temple Scroll is an ancient manuscript seen publicly for the first time ever, but the room was so dark it was hard to see the scroll at all. No, what really struck me was the ossuary of Caiaphas. It wasn't behind glass or in a darkened room and when I read the translation I thought to myself, "Who's Joseph Caiaphas?" And then it dawned on me: that's the High Priest who wanted Jesus crucified! It's difficult to explain, but at that moment I felt a renewed sense of awe as I realized all over again that the stories of the Gospels aren't actually stories, but are actual accounts of actual events. There before me was physical evidence that Caiaphas was a real person and was actually the High Priest who put Jesus on trial. It was truly an amazing experience to stand the day after Easter in front of the ossuary of one of the people responsible for Jesus' death, but to know that there is no ossuary labeled "Jesus of Galilee, son of Joseph" because the tomb is, and forever shall be, empty.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Without Excuse: A Look at Romans 1
The first chapter of Romans seeks to tell us what man can know about God and how he can come to that knowledge. There are two ways in which we can gain knowledge of God and before I go any further I would like to define those two paths. The first is commonly called "general revelation." General revelation can best be described as the gaining of knowledge of God without God's active intervention. Most commonly truths discovered about God through general revelation come from the natural world. Reason is usually the main tool which gives us knowledge via general revelation. The second kind of revelation is "special revelation." This kind of revelation deals with God directly interacting with mankind to give us some knowledge of Himself. The Bible is the best example of special revelation; however, I think that it can also apply to visions, dreams, and other direct experiences with God. Now that we've defined the two main kinds of revelation, let us look at what the apostle Paul has to say about revelation.
It is necessary that we establish who Paul's audience is in Romans. If the name of the book doesn't give it away, verse five gives us a clear idea to whom Paul is addressing this letter. In that verse Paul tells us that his calling is "to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His [God's] name's sake." Paul is writing to the Gentiles. The Gentiles haven't had the benefit of the Hebrew Scriptures to learn about God, but Paul still thinks that "they are without excuse" (v. 20). Paul is convinced that general revelation is enough to make the most important decision that there is to make: whether we are for God or against Him.
But how can Gentiles with no knowledge of Hebrew beliefs come to make the decision to follow or reject the God of the Hebrews? It must all come from general revelation. However, it should be noted that general revelation is rather limited in the amount of knowledge that one can gain about God. Paul only lists two of God's invisible attributes that can be known from general revelation: "His eternal power and divine nature" (v. 20). C.S. Lewis sheds light on the subject of general revelation with his exposition on one of the main truths that we can glean from the world. That truth is that there is a universal moral law (see Mere Christianity for a more in depth explication of how we can come to this knowledge). And if there is a universal moral law there must be a moral law giver. From the moral law we can see the character of God's divine nature.
Paul tells us that God made the moral law evident to mankind. How is it that God "made it evident to them" (v. 19)? I think that God gave us reason to discover the moral law. Reason cannot be explained satisfactorily with naturalistic causes. Reason cannot come from non-reason so reason must also have an author (see Lewis's Miracles for a better argument for this). So now we can make two statements about God: 1) He is moral, and 2) He possesses reason. Is this enough to make a decision about following or rejecting God? I think so. Through general revelation we can come to knowledge of the moral law and we find that we have trespassed against this law and in doing so trespassed against the Lawgiver. Even this incomplete knowledge is enough for Paul to claim that "they knew God" (v. 21). But what did they do with this knowledge? Paul tells us that "they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart[s] w[ere] darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools" (v. 21-22). It appears to me that the folly of the Gentiles was to think that general revelation can tell them what it could not.
Paul believes that the Gentiles had enough knowledge, via general revelation, to have at least a basic faith in the one, true God. Unfortunately, "they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God" for idols (v. 23). Furthermore, "they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (v. 25). And what was God's response to their action? "God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity" (v. 24). They made the choice to reject God and so God "gave them over to degrading passions" (v. 26). They knew God's moral law, but rejected it and so God rejected them. They had a chance but, they threw it away. So I close with these questions for my readers: Would these same men have made the same choice if they had had the benefit of special revelation? Is general revelation really enough for us to come to have a faith in God? I welcome your thoughts.
It is necessary that we establish who Paul's audience is in Romans. If the name of the book doesn't give it away, verse five gives us a clear idea to whom Paul is addressing this letter. In that verse Paul tells us that his calling is "to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His [God's] name's sake." Paul is writing to the Gentiles. The Gentiles haven't had the benefit of the Hebrew Scriptures to learn about God, but Paul still thinks that "they are without excuse" (v. 20). Paul is convinced that general revelation is enough to make the most important decision that there is to make: whether we are for God or against Him.
But how can Gentiles with no knowledge of Hebrew beliefs come to make the decision to follow or reject the God of the Hebrews? It must all come from general revelation. However, it should be noted that general revelation is rather limited in the amount of knowledge that one can gain about God. Paul only lists two of God's invisible attributes that can be known from general revelation: "His eternal power and divine nature" (v. 20). C.S. Lewis sheds light on the subject of general revelation with his exposition on one of the main truths that we can glean from the world. That truth is that there is a universal moral law (see Mere Christianity for a more in depth explication of how we can come to this knowledge). And if there is a universal moral law there must be a moral law giver. From the moral law we can see the character of God's divine nature.
Paul tells us that God made the moral law evident to mankind. How is it that God "made it evident to them" (v. 19)? I think that God gave us reason to discover the moral law. Reason cannot be explained satisfactorily with naturalistic causes. Reason cannot come from non-reason so reason must also have an author (see Lewis's Miracles for a better argument for this). So now we can make two statements about God: 1) He is moral, and 2) He possesses reason. Is this enough to make a decision about following or rejecting God? I think so. Through general revelation we can come to knowledge of the moral law and we find that we have trespassed against this law and in doing so trespassed against the Lawgiver. Even this incomplete knowledge is enough for Paul to claim that "they knew God" (v. 21). But what did they do with this knowledge? Paul tells us that "they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart[s] w[ere] darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools" (v. 21-22). It appears to me that the folly of the Gentiles was to think that general revelation can tell them what it could not.
Paul believes that the Gentiles had enough knowledge, via general revelation, to have at least a basic faith in the one, true God. Unfortunately, "they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God" for idols (v. 23). Furthermore, "they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (v. 25). And what was God's response to their action? "God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity" (v. 24). They made the choice to reject God and so God "gave them over to degrading passions" (v. 26). They knew God's moral law, but rejected it and so God rejected them. They had a chance but, they threw it away. So I close with these questions for my readers: Would these same men have made the same choice if they had had the benefit of special revelation? Is general revelation really enough for us to come to have a faith in God? I welcome your thoughts.
Monday, January 8, 2007
A Deeper Analysis of Mormon Doctrines
In the past few months, I have many good discussions with the Mormon missionaries. I have found opportunities to ask them questions about their beliefs and reply with my own objections. By speaking with them I have been able to gain more understanding about the theology and teachings of the Church of Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They claim that the Book of Mormon and the Bible present the same theology, furthermore, that the Book of Mormon illustrates this identical theology more clearly and accurately than the Bible. I don’t agree. I would like to show two areas in which the Book of Mormon is in conflict in its philosophy and theology with the teachings of the Bible. The areas I would like to touch upon are the nature of God and the nature of Jesus Christ.
Mormons claim to be monotheists. Indeed, Christianity also claims that there is but one, true God. However, the God in whom the Mormons believe (usually referred to as Heavenly Father) is a totally separate being from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Heavenly Father is like a human in that he has a spiritual body as well as a physical body. The Book of Mormon’s teaching is clear that God the Father has a physical body. Why is it so important that God have a physical body? A secret teaching, not usually told to immature believers, explains why. It was revealed to Joseph Smith that “as man is, God once was.” In other words, Mormons believe that Heavenly Father was at one time a man created by a previous Heavenly Father who was in turn once a man created by a previous Heavenly Father, and on and on to infinity. This doctrine is of course necessary so that good Mormons can have the hope that they themselves can become a future Heavenly Father on their own world or universe. This secret doctrine destroys their monotheistic guise and reveals Mormonism as a polytheistic religion. Furthermore, it is this belief that God was once man and that man can subsequently become God that is squarely in opposition to the teaching of the Bible.
The Bible does not teach that God has a physical body, in fact, John 4:24 is very clear that “God is a spirit.” It is true that the Bible often refers to God’s face, his feet, his hands, etc. but that is always in a figurative sense. If we took those passages literally we would have say that God also has wings (Ps 91:4) is made of wood (John 15:1), and is hot, combusting gas (Heb. 12:29). The Bible is equally clear that there has been only one God: “Before me there was no God formed, and there will be none after me.” (Is. 43:10). Mormons like to argue that God made us in his image and if he didn’t have a body he couldn’t have given us bodies. However, this interpretation of Genesis 1:27 does not stand up well to critical examination. Indeed God created man, but even this admission informs us that the phrase “in the likeness of” does not mean “exactly like.” Let me explain. Something that is created or made is intrinsically different from its maker. Birds make nests, but birds are not nests. Cats make hairballs, but (despite some debate) cats are not hairballs. Men create pictures, but men are not pictures. A man can even create a picture that is very much like him, but that picture can never be the same thing as the maker. In the same way God has made man, but God is not himself a man, and neither is man God. God is God, the one and only. Man cannot become God, no matter how god-like we become just as no picture of a man can become a man, no matter how lifelike it is.
Now following this train of thought it would seem impossible that God could become a man. A man can be the subject of a picture, but he can’t physically become a picture. So it would seem that God could not become a man. However, the Bible tells us that what is impossible with man is possible with God (Luke 18:27). Mormons believe that Jesus is not God, but is only one in spirit and purpose with Heavenly Father. There is no Trinity and Jesus was just a very spiritually elevated man. However, this is not what the Bible has to say about the matter. In John 1:1 the book’s author tells us that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” What does the Word do? Well, “the word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Whether we understand it or not the fact is that the Word, the Logos or God’s mind, became human. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that John calls Jesus the “only begotten from the Father.” Not only does this further set Jesus apart from the rest of mankind but it introduces an important concept. Unlike things which are created, things which are begotten are the same as the begetter. Birds beget birds and cats beget cats. In an analogous way God begets God. It would be difficult to argue that God could beget a man, no more than if a man could beget a picture of his son. It is true that God did miraculously impregnate Mary; however, I do not think that John’s reference to begetting is an allusion to the Virginal Conception.
In addition to the first chapter of John, the rest of the New Testament tells us that Jesus firmly believed that he was God. He claimed to forgive sins (an act only possible by God Himself) and was nearly killed on more than one occasion because of his claims. Both Jesus and the people around him know who he was claiming to be: God in the flesh. Jesus claims to be God can either be true or false. If they are false then he is either a madman or a liar. Neither option would suggest that he was just a Good Prophet like many claim. The only other option is that Jesus was telling the truth about his divinity.
The missionaries I have met with always object when I tell them that Jesus is God. If Jesus is God, and Heavenly Father is God, and if the Spirit is God doesn’t that mean that you believe in three Gods and not one? The simple answer is no. The Trinity is a very complex subject, but one should expect the truth to be complex. C.S Lewis once wrote, “If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anybody can be simple if he has no facts to bother about” (Mere Christianity). The fact is that Jesus claimed to be God and all throughout the Bible allusions are made to the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity. When we look at the Bible we see that there are three distinct personalities claiming to be God. And while they are each making claims to Divinity none make claims to subtract from the others. If we want to make it simpler for ourselves and say that God the Father is the only God and Jesus and the Spirit are very godlike, but didn’t quite make the cut we must call Jesus and the Spirit liars. That is what the facts force us to do.
In conclusion, the Bible is often unclear about certain points of doctrine. But it is clear that Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all separate while all being one God. It is clear that God the Father is a spiritual being and that Jesus was fully man and fully God. To believe otherwise is to ignore the facts presented in the Bible. If, as I have shown, the teachings of the Mormons stand in such stark contrast to the teachings of the Bible there can be only two logical courses of action. One is to accept the Bible and reject the Book of Mormon (along with the Mormon’s other Scriptures). The other is to accept the Book of Mormon as truth and reject the Bible as misinformation. The option to accept both as Holy Scripture is simply dead in the water.
Mormons claim to be monotheists. Indeed, Christianity also claims that there is but one, true God. However, the God in whom the Mormons believe (usually referred to as Heavenly Father) is a totally separate being from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Heavenly Father is like a human in that he has a spiritual body as well as a physical body. The Book of Mormon’s teaching is clear that God the Father has a physical body. Why is it so important that God have a physical body? A secret teaching, not usually told to immature believers, explains why. It was revealed to Joseph Smith that “as man is, God once was.” In other words, Mormons believe that Heavenly Father was at one time a man created by a previous Heavenly Father who was in turn once a man created by a previous Heavenly Father, and on and on to infinity. This doctrine is of course necessary so that good Mormons can have the hope that they themselves can become a future Heavenly Father on their own world or universe. This secret doctrine destroys their monotheistic guise and reveals Mormonism as a polytheistic religion. Furthermore, it is this belief that God was once man and that man can subsequently become God that is squarely in opposition to the teaching of the Bible.
The Bible does not teach that God has a physical body, in fact, John 4:24 is very clear that “God is a spirit.” It is true that the Bible often refers to God’s face, his feet, his hands, etc. but that is always in a figurative sense. If we took those passages literally we would have say that God also has wings (Ps 91:4) is made of wood (John 15:1), and is hot, combusting gas (Heb. 12:29). The Bible is equally clear that there has been only one God: “Before me there was no God formed, and there will be none after me.” (Is. 43:10). Mormons like to argue that God made us in his image and if he didn’t have a body he couldn’t have given us bodies. However, this interpretation of Genesis 1:27 does not stand up well to critical examination. Indeed God created man, but even this admission informs us that the phrase “in the likeness of” does not mean “exactly like.” Let me explain. Something that is created or made is intrinsically different from its maker. Birds make nests, but birds are not nests. Cats make hairballs, but (despite some debate) cats are not hairballs. Men create pictures, but men are not pictures. A man can even create a picture that is very much like him, but that picture can never be the same thing as the maker. In the same way God has made man, but God is not himself a man, and neither is man God. God is God, the one and only. Man cannot become God, no matter how god-like we become just as no picture of a man can become a man, no matter how lifelike it is.
Now following this train of thought it would seem impossible that God could become a man. A man can be the subject of a picture, but he can’t physically become a picture. So it would seem that God could not become a man. However, the Bible tells us that what is impossible with man is possible with God (Luke 18:27). Mormons believe that Jesus is not God, but is only one in spirit and purpose with Heavenly Father. There is no Trinity and Jesus was just a very spiritually elevated man. However, this is not what the Bible has to say about the matter. In John 1:1 the book’s author tells us that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” What does the Word do? Well, “the word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Whether we understand it or not the fact is that the Word, the Logos or God’s mind, became human. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that John calls Jesus the “only begotten from the Father.” Not only does this further set Jesus apart from the rest of mankind but it introduces an important concept. Unlike things which are created, things which are begotten are the same as the begetter. Birds beget birds and cats beget cats. In an analogous way God begets God. It would be difficult to argue that God could beget a man, no more than if a man could beget a picture of his son. It is true that God did miraculously impregnate Mary; however, I do not think that John’s reference to begetting is an allusion to the Virginal Conception.
In addition to the first chapter of John, the rest of the New Testament tells us that Jesus firmly believed that he was God. He claimed to forgive sins (an act only possible by God Himself) and was nearly killed on more than one occasion because of his claims. Both Jesus and the people around him know who he was claiming to be: God in the flesh. Jesus claims to be God can either be true or false. If they are false then he is either a madman or a liar. Neither option would suggest that he was just a Good Prophet like many claim. The only other option is that Jesus was telling the truth about his divinity.
The missionaries I have met with always object when I tell them that Jesus is God. If Jesus is God, and Heavenly Father is God, and if the Spirit is God doesn’t that mean that you believe in three Gods and not one? The simple answer is no. The Trinity is a very complex subject, but one should expect the truth to be complex. C.S Lewis once wrote, “If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anybody can be simple if he has no facts to bother about” (Mere Christianity). The fact is that Jesus claimed to be God and all throughout the Bible allusions are made to the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity. When we look at the Bible we see that there are three distinct personalities claiming to be God. And while they are each making claims to Divinity none make claims to subtract from the others. If we want to make it simpler for ourselves and say that God the Father is the only God and Jesus and the Spirit are very godlike, but didn’t quite make the cut we must call Jesus and the Spirit liars. That is what the facts force us to do.
In conclusion, the Bible is often unclear about certain points of doctrine. But it is clear that Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all separate while all being one God. It is clear that God the Father is a spiritual being and that Jesus was fully man and fully God. To believe otherwise is to ignore the facts presented in the Bible. If, as I have shown, the teachings of the Mormons stand in such stark contrast to the teachings of the Bible there can be only two logical courses of action. One is to accept the Bible and reject the Book of Mormon (along with the Mormon’s other Scriptures). The other is to accept the Book of Mormon as truth and reject the Bible as misinformation. The option to accept both as Holy Scripture is simply dead in the water.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Third Nephi: My First Look at Mormon Beliefs
It may seem that this installment is somewhat superfluous. By the end of my last article I have fully rejected that the Book of Mormon is inspired Scripture. You may be asking “Why continue to talk about the Book of Mormon?” and I would answer, “Maybe we can glean some truth from the Book of Mormon.” It might not be credible Scripture, but neither is The Republic and we can still learn truth from Plato. The Elders told me that everything taught in the Bible is analogous to what is taught in the Book of Mormon. They claim that the two records make it more difficult for false schisms to form by stabilizing one another. So let us examine the two books and see if they are really as closely aligned as we would be told.
The first section I read in the Book of Mormon was the account of Jesus’ appearance in the Americas (3 Nephi 11). To summarize: a great number of people are gathered together discussing the meaning of the past few days’ signs (these signs were prophesized to signal the arrival of Christ). A loud voice from Heaven calls three times (it was unintelligible the first two times) saying “Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him” (3 Nephi 11:7). Do you remember hearing something like this before (Matt. 3:17)? After they hear the voice, the glorified Jesus descends from the clouds and stands among the people. Everyone gets a chance to pass by and feel his wounds. He preaches to the crowd and baptizes them. He picks out twelve specific men and gives them the authority to baptize and spread the gospel. Chapters 12 through 14 pretty well mirror chapters 5 through 7 of the book of Matthew, which (for those of you like me who aren’t Bible scholars) is the Sermon on the Mount.
Let’s take a moment to look at these chapters with a discerning eye. The first thing that I noticed was Jesus’ entrance into the New World. His choice of entrance is just about as opposite as you can get from the way he came onto the scene in Judea. In the Old World, He entered in with no fanfare in a shed in a little town called Nazareth. He lived a fairly uneventful thirty years before beginning his ministry. During his ministry he often told the disciples not to proclaim him the Messiah (Matt. 8:4; 16:20; Mark 8:29-30; Luke 9:20-21). But all those previous ways of doing things go out the window as Jesus crossed the Prime Meridian. Instead of a quiet ministry beginning in rural South America, Jesus comes in like it’s the Second Coming. It seems that from the beginning this might not be the same Jesus of the Bible.
The fact that the chapters which retell the Sermon on the Mount are nearly identical to the account in Matthew is a source of little interest. Maybe if Joseph Smith had never read Matthew, then this would be of great importance. The only interesting point in those three chapters is the addition of a Beatitude. In 3 Nephi, the first beatitude is not “Blessed are the poor in spirit” but rather blessed are those that are baptized (12:2). This beatitude is conspicuously absent from the Biblical account. Of course, this addition doesn’t prove that the Book of Mormon is totally different theologically from the Bible, Jesus did preach about baptism; but it does begin to show the disproportionate amount of importance that Mormonism places on good works, in this case baptism.
In addition to reading those chapters, I also skimmed through the histories that recorded the events before Christ’s appearance. It seems that even before he was born the people in the New World knew that the Messiah’s name would be Jesus. Even more surprising is the fact that they actually understood the purpose of the Messiah! Almost two thousand years after his appearance there are still a great numbers of Jewish scholars who don’t understand the purpose of the Messiah. So how did the people here understand and believe everything about Jesus’ necessary sacrifice? Remember that during Jesus’ time most Jews thought that the Messiah was going to be a political savior not a man who would die on a cross. To fully appreciate this problem, please allow me a short tangent so that I can propose an adequate analogy to illustrate my point.
The progression of revealed religion and mathematics has a great deal in common. Both started off with a very basic understanding. The idea that a God even existed is as enormous a leap as the discovery that there exists a number called zero. In our modern day we take zero for granted, but it was quite a feat to come up with the concept of zero. As time progressed so did math and religion. Math added new functions like addition and division. Religion discovered the new ideas of good and evil. Even more time passed and both branches of knowledge continued to advance. Mathematicians found algebra, geometry, and calculus. Theologians (or their ancient counterparts) were shown Jehovah, the sacred act of the sacrifice, and finally the Great Act of the Sacrifice of God Himself for the sins of mankind. When we look back at these discoveries through time, we lose the appreciation of the monumental changes in thought that it took to move on to the next level of development. In addition to this loss of awe, we have taken for granted that we need each step in the progression to get to where we are now. Without basic algebra we wouldn’t have discovered calculus. In a like manner, without exposure to the early Judaic beliefs and practices we would not be able to understand Christ’s sacrifice. That is part of the reason I believe that we have the Old Testament. It tells us where we came from spiritually so that we can understand critical points of doctrine, such as, why Jesus died.
It seems to me that the people in the New World were at the level of basic math in their spiritual lives when the Jews arrived around 600 BC. They quickly advanced to algebra with guidance from the displaced Israelites. And when Christ arrived they made another enormous jump-- from algebra to calculus III. Now it is possible that they were capable of making these huge leaps in understanding, but I doubt it. If you throw the average Algebra student into an advanced calculus college course he will be able to follow some of the lecture. But at the end of the day you will have a very confused kid. In the same way, I think that the people of the New World would not have been able to understand Jesus as quickly as they purportedly did.
This short entry is no doubt far from the entire story, but I think that even from this small sample we can see that the Book of Mormon does not accurately portray the Jesus in the Bible or the required progression of thought needed to understand Christ’s mission. There may be something yet for us to learn from the Book of Mormon, but the odds are that it won’t be much.
The first section I read in the Book of Mormon was the account of Jesus’ appearance in the Americas (3 Nephi 11). To summarize: a great number of people are gathered together discussing the meaning of the past few days’ signs (these signs were prophesized to signal the arrival of Christ). A loud voice from Heaven calls three times (it was unintelligible the first two times) saying “Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him” (3 Nephi 11:7). Do you remember hearing something like this before (Matt. 3:17)? After they hear the voice, the glorified Jesus descends from the clouds and stands among the people. Everyone gets a chance to pass by and feel his wounds. He preaches to the crowd and baptizes them. He picks out twelve specific men and gives them the authority to baptize and spread the gospel. Chapters 12 through 14 pretty well mirror chapters 5 through 7 of the book of Matthew, which (for those of you like me who aren’t Bible scholars) is the Sermon on the Mount.
Let’s take a moment to look at these chapters with a discerning eye. The first thing that I noticed was Jesus’ entrance into the New World. His choice of entrance is just about as opposite as you can get from the way he came onto the scene in Judea. In the Old World, He entered in with no fanfare in a shed in a little town called Nazareth. He lived a fairly uneventful thirty years before beginning his ministry. During his ministry he often told the disciples not to proclaim him the Messiah (Matt. 8:4; 16:20; Mark 8:29-30; Luke 9:20-21). But all those previous ways of doing things go out the window as Jesus crossed the Prime Meridian. Instead of a quiet ministry beginning in rural South America, Jesus comes in like it’s the Second Coming. It seems that from the beginning this might not be the same Jesus of the Bible.
The fact that the chapters which retell the Sermon on the Mount are nearly identical to the account in Matthew is a source of little interest. Maybe if Joseph Smith had never read Matthew, then this would be of great importance. The only interesting point in those three chapters is the addition of a Beatitude. In 3 Nephi, the first beatitude is not “Blessed are the poor in spirit” but rather blessed are those that are baptized (12:2). This beatitude is conspicuously absent from the Biblical account. Of course, this addition doesn’t prove that the Book of Mormon is totally different theologically from the Bible, Jesus did preach about baptism; but it does begin to show the disproportionate amount of importance that Mormonism places on good works, in this case baptism.
In addition to reading those chapters, I also skimmed through the histories that recorded the events before Christ’s appearance. It seems that even before he was born the people in the New World knew that the Messiah’s name would be Jesus. Even more surprising is the fact that they actually understood the purpose of the Messiah! Almost two thousand years after his appearance there are still a great numbers of Jewish scholars who don’t understand the purpose of the Messiah. So how did the people here understand and believe everything about Jesus’ necessary sacrifice? Remember that during Jesus’ time most Jews thought that the Messiah was going to be a political savior not a man who would die on a cross. To fully appreciate this problem, please allow me a short tangent so that I can propose an adequate analogy to illustrate my point.
The progression of revealed religion and mathematics has a great deal in common. Both started off with a very basic understanding. The idea that a God even existed is as enormous a leap as the discovery that there exists a number called zero. In our modern day we take zero for granted, but it was quite a feat to come up with the concept of zero. As time progressed so did math and religion. Math added new functions like addition and division. Religion discovered the new ideas of good and evil. Even more time passed and both branches of knowledge continued to advance. Mathematicians found algebra, geometry, and calculus. Theologians (or their ancient counterparts) were shown Jehovah, the sacred act of the sacrifice, and finally the Great Act of the Sacrifice of God Himself for the sins of mankind. When we look back at these discoveries through time, we lose the appreciation of the monumental changes in thought that it took to move on to the next level of development. In addition to this loss of awe, we have taken for granted that we need each step in the progression to get to where we are now. Without basic algebra we wouldn’t have discovered calculus. In a like manner, without exposure to the early Judaic beliefs and practices we would not be able to understand Christ’s sacrifice. That is part of the reason I believe that we have the Old Testament. It tells us where we came from spiritually so that we can understand critical points of doctrine, such as, why Jesus died.
It seems to me that the people in the New World were at the level of basic math in their spiritual lives when the Jews arrived around 600 BC. They quickly advanced to algebra with guidance from the displaced Israelites. And when Christ arrived they made another enormous jump-- from algebra to calculus III. Now it is possible that they were capable of making these huge leaps in understanding, but I doubt it. If you throw the average Algebra student into an advanced calculus college course he will be able to follow some of the lecture. But at the end of the day you will have a very confused kid. In the same way, I think that the people of the New World would not have been able to understand Jesus as quickly as they purportedly did.
This short entry is no doubt far from the entire story, but I think that even from this small sample we can see that the Book of Mormon does not accurately portray the Jesus in the Bible or the required progression of thought needed to understand Christ’s mission. There may be something yet for us to learn from the Book of Mormon, but the odds are that it won’t be much.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
A Letter to Dr. Dino
As I sit in West Palm being, well, homeless, and living off the kindness and couches of my friends, I have found myself a bit bored and so I took the time to write an email to a popular Creationist: Dr. Kent Hovind. Here is what I said:
How important is it that a Christian believes that the world was created in six, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago? I always thought that the central tenet of Christianity was not the cosmology laid out in Genesis, but rather the humanity and divinity of Jesus of Nazareth who died and was raised to life in an act which atones for the sins of humanity. If we can agree on the claims that Jesus made about Himself and the acts He performed, what does it matter if He created the universe 6,000 years ago or 6 billion years ago? Is the huge amount of research and effort and funding that feeds the "Creation vs. Evolution" debate really being used in the best possible way? Or have we forgotten that Christ calls us to "Love our neighbor as ourselves," not to convince him that our view is right and any other way of looking at thing is stupid? If we channeled our efforts toward loving our "enemies" instead of insulting their intelligence and integrity maybe they would see the light on a hill that we are supposed to be.
Here is the Automated response I got the next day:
Dear Matthew B. Davis,Thank you for your e-mail for Dr. Hovind. Each day we receive an abundance of calls, e-mails, and letters for him and it has become extremely difficult for him to answer each one personally because of his very busy schedule. He would very much like to talk to you and suggests that you call into his daily radio program. If you do not wish to call into the radio, your question will still be submitted to the radio show and will be answered during the live radio broadcast. If you are unable to listen to the program during the scheduled airtime, you may listen to archived radio shows at www.truthradio.com To listen to the show, go to our website http://www.drdino.com and tune in to Creation Science Hour which is on weekdays from 4:30 - 6:00 pm (Central Time). Click on the red bar which appears at the top of our Home Page to listen to the broadcast during this time period. Dr. Hovind answers all kinds of questions live during the CREATION SCIENCE HOUR. His AOL instant message name is drdinolive. Or call our toll free number at 1-877-479-3466 ext 136 during this time period. Outside the U.S. the phone number is 1-800-479-3466. When he is out of town the program will be pre-recorded.God bless,CSE Customer Service
About three days after I received the email above one of the staff members sent me this short, but to the point message.
Dear Matthew,
Wow – please stop attending the wishy washy church you are going to now and find a Bible-believing church!
Love with *justice* - got it?
If there was no Fall, there was no need for the Cross.
Sincerely, Paul
(Dr. Dino Staff)
www.drdino.com
After receiving the above email, I responded to Paul:
Paul:
I appreciate your response, I had nearly given up the hope that I would get anything more than an automated response. To respond to your message, the church I currently attend is actually how I was introduced to Dr. Hovind. In Sunday school one of the classes showed his lecture DVDs. Outside of Sunday school, I have never even heard a pastor or speaker talk about evoultion except to condemn it. Furthermore, I agree wholeheartedly that without the Fall the Cross would not be needed. Humans are naturally sinful and that is why we need salvation. But the doctrine of the Fall is not the issue. In fact, the doctrine of the Creation, that the one, true, triune God created the universe, is also not in question. The true issue at hand is the relative importance of the doctrine that states that God created the universe in six literal days. I think that some doctrines are more important than others. For example, the doctrine that Jesus is God's Son is more important than the doctrine that says the only right way to baptize someone is full immersion. In the grand scheme of things, if you were baptised with a sprinkling of water or dunked doesn't matter as much as if you call Jesus that Son of God or just a great prophet. Along that same idea is where my question lies: How important is it to believe God created in six literal days? Must someone embrace that idea or be condemned to Hell? That is the question which I asked, but I'm afraid it was not fully addressed. If you or someone on the Dr. Dino staff could address my question I would greatly appreciate it. In closing, could you also expand on your comment "Love with *justice* - got it?" Thanks again for responed to my question, I look forward to further dialogue with you.
Sincerely,Matt
A few days later, Paul responded:
Sir, Please understand that I cannot write for long. I apologize for this. We take the Bible very seriously. Baptism, as one doctrine, is an important one. Creation in God's image, as the Bible said, is another. You seem to be a smart person, but ... one who is not well grounded.Best Wishes, Paul
As you can see, Paul still has not answered my question. If you have any thoughts, feel free to respond.
How important is it that a Christian believes that the world was created in six, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago? I always thought that the central tenet of Christianity was not the cosmology laid out in Genesis, but rather the humanity and divinity of Jesus of Nazareth who died and was raised to life in an act which atones for the sins of humanity. If we can agree on the claims that Jesus made about Himself and the acts He performed, what does it matter if He created the universe 6,000 years ago or 6 billion years ago? Is the huge amount of research and effort and funding that feeds the "Creation vs. Evolution" debate really being used in the best possible way? Or have we forgotten that Christ calls us to "Love our neighbor as ourselves," not to convince him that our view is right and any other way of looking at thing is stupid? If we channeled our efforts toward loving our "enemies" instead of insulting their intelligence and integrity maybe they would see the light on a hill that we are supposed to be.
Here is the Automated response I got the next day:
Dear Matthew B. Davis,Thank you for your e-mail for Dr. Hovind. Each day we receive an abundance of calls, e-mails, and letters for him and it has become extremely difficult for him to answer each one personally because of his very busy schedule. He would very much like to talk to you and suggests that you call into his daily radio program. If you do not wish to call into the radio, your question will still be submitted to the radio show and will be answered during the live radio broadcast. If you are unable to listen to the program during the scheduled airtime, you may listen to archived radio shows at www.truthradio.com To listen to the show, go to our website http://www.drdino.com and tune in to Creation Science Hour which is on weekdays from 4:30 - 6:00 pm (Central Time). Click on the red bar which appears at the top of our Home Page to listen to the broadcast during this time period. Dr. Hovind answers all kinds of questions live during the CREATION SCIENCE HOUR. His AOL instant message name is drdinolive. Or call our toll free number at 1-877-479-3466 ext 136 during this time period. Outside the U.S. the phone number is 1-800-479-3466. When he is out of town the program will be pre-recorded.God bless,CSE Customer Service
About three days after I received the email above one of the staff members sent me this short, but to the point message.
Dear Matthew,
Wow – please stop attending the wishy washy church you are going to now and find a Bible-believing church!
Love with *justice* - got it?
If there was no Fall, there was no need for the Cross.
Sincerely, Paul
(Dr. Dino Staff)
www.drdino.com
After receiving the above email, I responded to Paul:
Paul:
I appreciate your response, I had nearly given up the hope that I would get anything more than an automated response. To respond to your message, the church I currently attend is actually how I was introduced to Dr. Hovind. In Sunday school one of the classes showed his lecture DVDs. Outside of Sunday school, I have never even heard a pastor or speaker talk about evoultion except to condemn it. Furthermore, I agree wholeheartedly that without the Fall the Cross would not be needed. Humans are naturally sinful and that is why we need salvation. But the doctrine of the Fall is not the issue. In fact, the doctrine of the Creation, that the one, true, triune God created the universe, is also not in question. The true issue at hand is the relative importance of the doctrine that states that God created the universe in six literal days. I think that some doctrines are more important than others. For example, the doctrine that Jesus is God's Son is more important than the doctrine that says the only right way to baptize someone is full immersion. In the grand scheme of things, if you were baptised with a sprinkling of water or dunked doesn't matter as much as if you call Jesus that Son of God or just a great prophet. Along that same idea is where my question lies: How important is it to believe God created in six literal days? Must someone embrace that idea or be condemned to Hell? That is the question which I asked, but I'm afraid it was not fully addressed. If you or someone on the Dr. Dino staff could address my question I would greatly appreciate it. In closing, could you also expand on your comment "Love with *justice* - got it?" Thanks again for responed to my question, I look forward to further dialogue with you.
Sincerely,Matt
A few days later, Paul responded:
Sir, Please understand that I cannot write for long. I apologize for this. We take the Bible very seriously. Baptism, as one doctrine, is an important one. Creation in God's image, as the Bible said, is another. You seem to be a smart person, but ... one who is not well grounded.Best Wishes, Paul
As you can see, Paul still has not answered my question. If you have any thoughts, feel free to respond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)