fruitful faith » creation

patient haste

Dale — Mon, 24 May 2010 10:19:24 +0000

Six days to create heaven and earth? What took so long, God?

13.73 billiion years of creative work? Aren’t we being a bit hasty?

Day, thousand years and . . . → Read More: patient haste

a rocha

Dale — Tue, 18 May 2010 22:22:51 +0000

It was great to hear Richard Storey share at ‘after dinner mints’ at Carey Tuesday lunch yesterday. “Richard is a freshwater biologist for the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). He spent two years with A Rocha in Lebanon and now chairs the board of A Rocha NZ. This Christian organisation is focused on science, research, practical conservation and environmental education.” (from Carey website)

Not only was it refreshing to hear a thoughtful, patient, pro-science Christian who is applying their faith to all of life, but I was particularly impressed to learn of an upcoming climate-change conference being planned. So often, the ‘sides’ tar and feather each other, never really patiently engaging with each other (certainly the blogosphere is overflowing with such politicised ranting – on both sides), but it was wonderful to hear that a conference is in the works which (apparently) will be inclusive of and patient enough to dialogue with even people like Ian Wishart (author of ‘Con Air’). It is this spirit of patient dialogue, taking the time to hear one another that will help make any progress. It avoids making the mistake of not taking the other person seriously enough to actually engage with them.

pre-fall death

Dale — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:15:13 +0000

On the 5th day, God filled the skies and seas with all kinds of sky-life (‘every sort of winged bird’) and sea-life (‘swarms of living creatures’). Everything that flies through the sky. Everything that lives in the sea. A few points:

Someone a lot more biologically inclined than myself could (probably? if indeed such short-lived organisms exist?) give examples of fast-reproducing organisms (microbes, gnats, etc.?) whose life-spans are only a few hours, and thus would have died on the same day of their creation.
According to ‘mature creation’ theory (creation created ‘mature’ – light already in transit from distant stars, trees with [very misleading!] annual rings only moments old, etc.), there would have been very, very ‘mature’-slash-about-to-die birdies and fishies created, some of which – conceivably – would have died on the same day of their creation.
Also, unless not one, single, fish-eating bird dipped down and tasted of the delicious bounty of the shimmering little fishies below, at least some fish would have died on the same day of their creation.

Beyond conceivable doubt, even given a 24-hour day understanding of creation (with 6, successive acts of ‘spontaneous creation’), there would have been physical death before the events of Genesis 3.

((note: I see no reason to doubt that the text of Genesis 1 was originally a poem/song expressing theological truths, as opposed to being a play-by-play, moment-by-moment, fact-by-fact account of the ‘how’ of creations’ origin. Thus, the nit-picking-ly detailed exercise above ought to be unnecessary – but is merely noted in reference to those who insist that there could have been no death before the Fall.))

uncreated thing

Dale — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:36:07 +0000

Those who hold that all things (the universe/multiverse/whatever) began to exist and were created (by an ultimate Creator or First/bottom Cause), and those who hold that all things (the universe/multiverse/whatever) ‘have always existed in some form/state’ agree on (at least) one point…

…namely that there is indeed an uncreated ‘thing’ which cannot be questioned, caused, created, ‘got behind’, etc.

The former call this . . . → Read More: uncreated thing

‘big question’ essays

Dale — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:44:55 +0000

Cheers to Bryson for directing me to an essay, which I discovered was one over several over at The John Templeton Foundation.

The essays are comprised answers to ‘big questions’ from a variety of perspectives – theist, atheist and agnostic. They make for interesting reading whatever your beliefs are.

Two of the ‘big questions‘ essays were of particular interest to me: “Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” and “Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?“.

Some other bits which may be of interest to some readers include:

“Does Evolution Explain Human Nature?“
Debates between contributers to the Science/Belief essay (Christopher Hitchens v. Ken Miller; Jerome Groopman v. Michael Shermer; and Steven Pinker v. William D. Phillips).
A Brief interview with (physicist/cosmologist) Paul Davies concerning multiverse theory
assorted video content (look for it)

mixed responses

Dale — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:00:36 +0000

The Christian response to the ‘Faithful Science’ day-conference have been mixed.

Most of the appreciative and complementary feedback has been email or verbal. As for the less-appreciative feedback, unfortunately it’s been more public.

First, the Christian newspaper “Challenge Weekly” published a (to say it kindly) selective and less-than-inaccurate piece entitled “Conference fuels Controversy” (which can be viewed here – scroll down about half way), which, among other things, made the bizarre and out-of-left-field claim that some of the presenters held views more like Deism (which was anything but the case).

Predictably, the “letters to the editor” section in subsequent issues have been spotted with a handful of readers who were concerned/shocked by the conference. And, also not a surprise, a fresh write-up by CMI (Creation Ministries International) was subsequently published (here), entitled “Genesis not a Myth”, warning against a roadway to “spiritual disaster”.

The CMI article is also up here at their own website in very similar format, though more specifically targeting the Faithful Science conference.

I’ve offerred a couple of responses to Challenge, hoping to a) correct factual errors, b) help to clarify relevant issues, and c) challenge (no pun intended) readers to be more patient, and not assume what “those christian evolutionists” actually believe. Also, I’ve responsed to the CMI article and am hoping for some positive interaction there.

Also, I’ve had some dialogue (which is absolutely exemplary in terms of tone, patience, etc.) with an I.D. advocate who is a member of my church and attended the conference.

Here’s to (hopefully!) fruitful dialogue and interaction in the next… however long.

god is not a ‘thing’…

Dale — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:28:14 +0000

…and that is one of the first ‘things’ I believe . . . → Read More: god is not a ‘thing’…

faithful science

Dale — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:41:11 +0000

Announcing “Faithful Science“…

A one-day Science & Faith conference – coming August 1.

Speakers and topics:

DALE CAMPBELL – Science & Faith: Key Issues
YAEL KLANGWISAN – Reading the book of Genesis
NICOLA HOGGARD CREEGAN – Evolution and Evil
MYK HABETS – A Scientific Theology
JEFF TALLON – Physics and Faith
MATT FLANNAGAN – Does Evolution Make Belief in God Untenable?
GRAEME FINLAY – The Glorious Ape
NEIL BROOM – Is there Transcendence in Nature?
GRAHAM O’BRIEN – Evolution & Purpose

Organised by TANSA…

Hosted by Northcote Baptist.

PDF flyer here.

Y’all come now ya hear?

teleology & ethics

Dale — Tue, 26 May 2009 11:41:51 +0000

The word ‘teleology’ (from Greek τελος ‘telos’ – meaning ‘goal’, ‘end’, ‘purpose’ or ‘that toward which things tend’) is not a street-level term. However, the concept of a purpose, goal, function or ‘end’ to things most certainly is. It’s a common as anything. Teleology is blindingly relevant.

It’s worth noting (as I have before) that one cannot speak of anything being truly good or bad, well or poorly functioning without some kind of teleological concept. From complaints (or amazement) about how poorly (or well) ‘designed’ the universe is (if designed at all – see this rebuttal), to the largest complaint of all – the ‘problem of evil’ (which has an often forgotten twin, the ‘problem’ of good); every kind of value-judgment we make assumes some kind of teleological concept.

Teleology, then, underlies the whole prospect of moral and ethical enquiry. If things merely ‘function’, but do not function toward a certain end, goal or purpose, then there can be no such thing as a truly or ultimately immoral action. Nothing can be said to ultimately or truly right or wrong with either the universe or human behaviour.

One can give an account of the ‘functioning’ of an event/thing in purely numerical, metrical or otherwise descriptive terms: human ‘a’ swings their right arm with tightly-closed digits in such a way that the digits impact the face of human ‘b’ with ‘x’ amount of force, resulting in human ‘b’ losing the state of balance and falling to the ground… etc. This is a statistical, and purely ‘objective’ account of an event. No ethical comment here.

The moment someone begins to say that one person should not have hit someone (or should have in the case, for example, of self-defense or protecting a helpless person being raped or otherwise harmed), they are imposing a teleological assumption onto the set of events. They are no longer giving a merely descriptive account of the event, they are giving a prescriptive account.

As a Christian, my ethical thought (and hopefully my action too!) is shaped by my belief that creation has a telos. Things are being brought from a state of chaos (Genesis 1 creation poem says ‘tohu vo vohu’ – wild and waste – formless and void) to a state of more and more orderedness. Things are going somewhere – toward an ‘end’. Things are meant to behave in a certain way and not another way. This, in a basic sense, is what the notion of God’s “will” (desire) means.

The most tightly compacted summary of the desire of God is one word – Love. Jesus summarised the entire ‘Law’ and ‘Prophets’ in two commands: Love God. Love Others as Self.

A summary that I’ve found helpful is the desire of God for humans to be in right relationship 1) with God, 2) with other humans, 3) with ourselves, and 4) with creation.

Christianity views humans as having a unique status (and therefore responsibility) within Creation. This anthropocentricism is not, however, to devalue the rest of creation. All of creation is seen to ‘reflect’ God’s beauty and creativity. But humans as the ‘crown’ of creation, the ones with the capacity to bear God’s ‘image’ in a unique way, have a special role. Humans are put ‘in charge’ of creation, commissioned to take care of it, and use it wisely – working to bring it to the fullest expression according to God’s will/desire.

Interestingly, no matter what one believes about God or whether or not humans reflect a God, it is manifestly obvious that humans have the greatest power to either utterly wreck things or to behave in a way which helps creation, humanity included, to flourish. (And we note, again, in passing, that things being ‘wrecked’ or things ‘flourishing’ are meaningless concepts with no teleology.)

Christian ethics, then, are based on a Christian understanding of God’s purposes for His creation; namely to bring it to full and rich orderedness. An orderedness characterised by not control but freedom to be all that it was made for. And an orderedness characterised by Love.

Here are a few (quite random) examples of my out-working of this:

Education: Knowledge is to serve relationships. Humans are to celebrate any/all kinds of knowledge which enrich their relationship to/with creation, each other and the creator (i.e. medical knowledge, social knowledge, scientific knowledge, relational knowledge, etc.), while not letting knowledge –or the pursuit of it– become an idol or an enslaving thing.
Sexuality: Sex is to be used in such a way as to bring an orderedness characterised by freedom, and not slavery. Many forms/expressions of sexuality are characterised by human slavery to sexual desire. Sex is for humans, not humans for sex. Also, sex is to bring relational fullness, not relational pain. Sex should thus be respected as the powerful thing it is, and used in ways that reflect freedom and full relationships.
Poultry production (one of my favourite examples): God’s desire is not for chickens to live the life of a chicken in a cage covered with it’s own feces, and to be injected with steroids and killed in a mechanical and abusive fashion, etc. God’s desire is also not for chickens to be deified to the point where they are forbidden to be eaten. Chickens are a part of God’s good creation, and are to be farmed, ‘egged’ (hens) and processed/eaten in a way that is characterised by order and freedom (the ‘free range’ movement is brilliant here).
Eating (while on the topic!): Humans (like other animals) need to eat to survive, but eating should not be treated as a merely biologically sustaining thing, but rather in a way that brings dignity to both what is eaten and who eats it. One of the most degrading and undignified forms of eating is (we all do it) fast food. Where speed and efficiency of production is the telos of eating. The food is mass-produced, the food preparers have little/no relationship to the eaters, and the eating experience is rushed and shabby. Contrast this with a community that grows and harvests their own crops, and where the cooks sit at the same table with everyone, serving each other and sharing in the creativity of food preparation and the joy of sharing the eating experiene (the culmination fo the whole process) together.
Work: Work is to bring freedom not slavery and enable us to bless, rather than participate in being a curse. Laziness and greed are equally destructive things. Slacking on the job or working 60+ hour work weeks are ways of cheating and enslaving (or being enslaved). Industry and production should serve to bring about the flourishing of creation – including humans. Work in fields such as education, social-work, government, police-work, food industry, transport/travel, clothing, entertainment, etc. can all be done in either a dehumanising way or a humanising way.
Music/Art: Art (including poetry) is a deeply human thing, and should reflect the creativity of the creator. Art can deeply reflect reality in a way that other things cannot. Art can be characterised by chaos and confusion with no hint of redemption or freedom, or it can speak of healing, order, justice and transformation (even while acknowleding brokenness and pain). Sadly, much ‘Christian’ art is often cheap copies of what has been done before, and has no staying power (it is quickly forgotten).
Technology: All technology (from eating utensils to wireless broadband) should serve to bring order, freedom and to deepen relationships. Sadly, we often end up being enslaved to our conveniences. Technology allows us to have higher frequency and quantity of contact with other people – bringing the sad reality of ever-increasing numbers of ‘contacts’ and ever-shallowing depth of relationship with family and friends. Transportation technology takes us further and faster away from home than ever before, giving us more options than we know what to do with. Add to this, the constant reminders that our basic normal life is boring, and that we ‘deserve’ another trip to this or that resort place to ‘escape’, and we find ourselves often on a treadmill-ish pursuit of ‘happiness’, being less and less satisfied with ‘normal life’ and seeking more and more after the elusive reality we see in the advertisements.
Medical Activity: Medical knowledge and activity should serve to bring order to the chaos of disease and injury and freedom from blindness and pain. It should always be used in the service of rich human life, not to destroy it. Surgery should be about healing (even if it temporarily makes you bleeed), not about making a womans breasts look like this or that super-model or about doing away with an inconvenient developing pre-born child.
Violence: Violence is only justified when in the service of bringing freedom and preserving relationships – for example protecting those who cannot protect themselves from rapists, thiefs, abusers, torturers and (actual) terrorists. The power to inflict violence (and control people by doing so) comes with great responsibility.
Community: Obviously, community is a place where relationships are central. True community is characterised by freedom and whole and holistic relationships. Community that leaves people enslaved to things, experiences or addictions, etc. is not a community characterised by love. Also, community that controls and micro-manages people is to treat people as cogs in a system and is therefore dehumanising rather than humanising and thus not characterised by freedom. True human-ness if found not in isolation from all others, nor in being forced into conformity with them, but in a community which values true genuine human flourishing and which is characterised by loving, patient and consistent transformation to it.
Money/Possessions: All possessions are to be held with gratitude, and to be not merely ‘used’ or ‘consumed’ with our comfort/survival/convenience as the telos, but rather to be shared with and passed on to others. Life’s telos is not acquisition or status, but transformation and wholeness; and our handling of money and possessions should reflect this.
Clothing: Clothing is a wonderfully rich and creative human thing. It can be used (both by wearers and producers) to enrich our freedom and relationship to others, or to enslave us. Fashion, for example, can often serve to alienate and degrade those who are not able (for either financial or body-style reasons) to keep up with things. This divides and dehumanises, and is not God’s desire. Although modest dress will look differently from place to place and time to time, for each culture/place, there will be uses of clothing that either serve to enhance a person’s personality and humanness or which will serve to rob them of their person-hood, and make them into an object. Clothing design and production can and should be a creative and body-honouring thing which encourages human relationships.

the most basic question

Dale — Mon, 25 May 2009 11:56:23 +0000

The most basic question one could ask is one which is asked and wondered at both by small children and genius level intellectuals.

It has various forms, and is worded differently, but is essentially the same question:

Where did we come from?

Alternate forms include: Why are we (or anything!) here? How did things come into being? Why is there something rather than nothing?

It’s the question of the ultimate origin (or original beginning) of everything.

A few things about the question:

First, it is valid to ask this question and to seek at least some kind of answer. The level of certainty which one has concerning their answer has nothing to do with whether or not it is a valid question.

Second, we are never done asking the question. Comparison between the various kinds of answers will never be finished.

Third, it is the most basic question. It is the question where all other questions lead to.

Now, this most basic question has three kinds of answers (each with presumably infinite variations):

Everything* is an illusion.
Everything is eternal.
Everything was created.

Now, I’ll comment on each option in more detail.

Everything is an illusion. This is not a popular view. Who would want that to be true? More than this, it immediately raises the question of “If things are illusory, then who/what is having the illusion?” Descartes famously said “I think therefore I am.” So things are real. Option one is neither desirable nor logical.
Everything is eternal (uncreated/uncaused). This view encompasses all views in which the idea of an ultimate ‘beginning’ is rejected. Cosmology (whether big bang theory or multiverse theory) seems to point ‘back’ spacially, temporally and causally to an ultimate beginning. Also, even the views that are cyclic in nature would seem to be in need of a prior explanation.
Everything is created (had a beginning / was caused). This view can be split into two: a) Everything is caused/created by a cause/creator other than itself; or b) Everything is caused/created/originated by itself. More succinctly: a) Created by creator or b) Self-originating. If it is arbitrary or ad hoc (which I reject) to postulate a Creator, than it is certainly and utterly arbitrary and ad hoc to postulate that ‘Everything’ just had to exist of necessity (by nature). This leads me and countless others to conclude that the most rational and reasonable position to take (however tentatively or confidently) is the view that Everything was created/caused by a creator/cause other than itself. This view encompasses all kinds of beliefs in any/all kinds of creators/causes. Affirming a 1st cause does not instantly commit someone to any particular kind of set of beliefs – only the simple affirmation of a 1st cause. Pantheism, Panentheism, Deism, Theism, Spinozian/Einsteinian cosmic ‘god’, Mother Nature, etc. are all encompassed here.

This question, again, is the most basic question and is the starting point of theology. Theology starts with the assumption (and a rational/reasonable one) that the only valid answer for the existence of things is a Creator who is other than the things created.

Theology must be taken one step/level at a time. It is utter nonsense to reject the general idea of a Creator because of some specific question at a later logical step/level.

That brings things to a natural breaking point, so I’ll finish there.

Can anyone think of a 4th possible ‘kind’ of answer to the question – or another example of one of the three answers given that I did not mention? Other responses?

***

*The word ‘Everything’ is being used here in the most basic sense, to refer to all existing ‘things’. Much argument can be had about this usage. But not here.