A recent article on the Sydney Anglican Heretics blog highlights the depth of compromise on Genesis in the Sydney Anglican Diocese. I mean, if theistic evolution is the position of the leader of the church then I expect this to have some kind of top-down effect.^[1,2]

John writes:

Peter [Jensen], as has long been known, is an evolutionist*. Quite naturally Peter, along with all theistic evolutionists, has to play some irrational semantic games and alter the meaning of words in order to mould Scripture to fit a pagan worldview. Somehow – the details, scientifically or theologically, never exactly laid out – God is able to allow chance to create while never surrendering his office of creator. At this point I tend to think that Peter and the others are trying to turn a circle into a square but still have it called a circle. Beats me!

Anyway, the point I want to make is that Peter’s allegiance to evolution puts him outside of Christian orthodoxy, by a theological mile. If a metaphysical principle is creating the enormous amounts of novel biological information that life requires, then it isn’t our Lord doing it. New biological information is the product of thought, of teleonomic conception, not the randomisation processes being acted upon by natural selection that evolution posits as being its source (This is superbly argued in the triple-PhD Wilder-Smith’s book, God: To be or not to be?). Peter can’t have his square and circle be the one object: Either Christ, acting through will and thought, brings forth biological information, and thus life, or it’s chance randomisation of matter, the metaphysical principle of materialism. The two are incompatible and irreconcilable.

* Lest it be said that we are misrepresenting Peter’s views, the following is a quote from Doctrine 1 while he was principal at Moore College: “There is a division of opinion about how God created the world [Actually, there isn’t, Peter. The difference lies between those that truly believe the Bible is God’s unchanging revelation to mankind and those, like yourself, that believe it can change as science, so-called, “proves” God has less and less to do with. Just ask Jack Spong.]. From the standpoint of these notes the ‘theistic evolution’ account offers the best understanding….By ‘theistic evolution’ we mean that God created the world through the process of evolution [there’s that square-circle again folks!].” Doctrine 1, Unit 7, p. 105.

http://sydneyanglicanheretics.blogspot.com/2010/02/test-for-orthodoxy.html

For another great illustration highlighting the incoherency of theistic evolution, I recommend John Woodmorrappe’s short essay on the subject.

1. Peter Jensen is the Archbishop of the Sydney Anglican Diocese
2. In the comments section of John’s article, Sam Drucker quipped that Peter Jensen “encourage[d] Clergy to avoid confrontation on this issue.” Whether that is the case or not, I can attest first hand to such experiences among the Anglican faithful and now I wonder how much of it is the influence of the leaders in the church who don’t think that discussion about this issue is important?

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• How to Yoke an Invisible Horse to a Tractor (0)

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• “Discussing” God, Science and Sanity (8)
• How to Yoke an Invisible Horse to a Tractor (0)
• The Greatest Hoax on Earth (5)

RYFT (Christian):

Christianity is the only religion in the entire world whose afterlife is based on grace; that is, every single other religion on the planet teaches an afterlife that is reached by some kind of balance of good works. Christianity is singularly unique in that salvation (afterlife) is not based on any human good works at all, period. It is based on the good works of Jesus Christ, in whom alone the believer is saved. This is because “a balance of good works” is precisely that: a balance, meaning that in addition there are bad works, violations of God’s holy law. In human courts, a person found guilty of breaking several criminal laws is never told by the judge, “Well, aside from these laws you have broken you’re an otherwise pretty decent fellow. You may go. No sentence for you.” It would be unjust to not punish guilty criminals. He may be a decent fellow, but he is nevertheless guilty of having broken several criminal laws, and justice demands crime be punished. On what grounds, then, would a person think God would leave sins unpunished? That would be unjust.

ANTHONY (Atheist):

You came to the conclusion that the correct religion in the world consists of a God with a one-size-fits-all plan for salvation? One that simply judges a book by its cover?

RYFT:

Since that is a crude caricature that fails to reflect what I had said, there is nothing for me to respond to. I have zero interest in answering for beliefs I don’t have.

ANTHONY:

But you said Christianity is based on belief and grace, rather than actions in life. I was addressing that. The only characteristic that God would consider is your belief in him, which is a human act. Would that be a fair assessment?

RYFT:

I had said nothing about what Christianity is based on. I said salvation is based on God’s grace, not human works.

Moreover, that is not a fair assessment, but a wildly inaccurate one that completely ignores what I had actually said. Belief in God does not save anyone. A person is not saved because he believes, but because of what Christ did.

It’s not as if man exists in some state of spiritual neutrality from which either ‘belief’ or ‘non-belief’ finally determines his standing before God, whether justified or condemned. Under biblical Christianity, all mankind exists in a state of condemnation already on account of sin. We all come from the same pool of death and darkness, of sin and moral ruin—and through unbelief (itself a sin) man remains there. We exist under judgment for death; only in Christ is there judgment for life. We exist under God’s wrath; only in Christ is that wrath removed. We exist under condemnation; only in Christ are we justified. Salvation is through Christ, not belief, who died for the sins of all who repent and believe.

"The doctrines of grace are the biblical teachings that define the ends and means of God’s perfect work of redemption. They tell us that God is the one who saves, for his own glory, and freely. And they tell us that he does so only through Christ, only on the basis of his grace, only with the perfection that marks everything the Father, Son, and Spirit do. The doctrines of grace separate the Christian faith from the works-based religions of men. They direct us away from ourselves and solely to God’s grace and mercy. They destroy pride, instil humility, and exalt God." (James R. White)

ANTHONY:

You’re not making any sense. First you say, “Belief in God does not save anyone.” But then you say, “Salvation is through Christ, not belief, who died for the sins of all who repent and believe.” So in order for me to be saved, I need to believe that Christ is my personal Savior (an entity that is also considered God). Or am I getting this wrong?

(And that quote from White? Niiiice!)

RYFT:

You are getting this wrong. Let me construct a chain we can follow.

(1) Salvation is through Christ alone—by who he is (sinless substitute) and what he did (atoning sacrifice). (2) His death paid for the sins of all who repent and believe. (3) So in order to be saved, you need to be one of those who repent and believe because that’s whose sins Christ’s death paid for. (4) If you do not repent and believe, your sins are not covered by his sacrifice, leaving you to pay for your sins on your own.

So then it is not your repentance and belief that saves you. It is Christ’s life and death that saves you, a salvation you enter into through repentance and belief.

If there are any lingering questions, go ahead and ask. I hope I’ve made it clear, but only you can tell me.

ANTHONY:

It’s a bit confusing? You say it’s not your belief that saves you, but then you would not be able to be saved without that particular belief.

RYFT:

Well, not quite: “you would not be able to be saved without” Christ paying for your sins. Salvation is through having sins paid for. Belief does not pay for sins. (1) Christ paid for the sins of all those who repent and believe. (2) All those who repent and believe therefore have their sins paid for.

ANTHONY:

Got it.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Quotables: Aiden Tozer (0)
• Quotables: Arthur Pink (0)
• John Piper: On John Newton (2)

I heard the song East to West by Casting Crowns for the first time on a myspace site a few years ago and became addicted to it almost instantly. The lyrics will really hit home for those of you who know what it means to struggle with sin everyday. But it also touches very personally on many truths at the heart of Christianity and paints a vivid picture of Christ crucified for the purpose of separating us from sin as “far as the east is from the west”.

For example, you may recognise the reference in the song to this passage from Scripture:

‘as far as the east is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us.’

Psalm 103:12

The significance of the comparison of East with West being that the two are mutually exclusive; necessarily separate; the one can never unite with the other.

I think the writers of this song (Mark Hall and Bernie Herms) demonstrate – not just through this song, but many others they write – a proper attitude to sin and to Christ, as well as the ability to capture, through the lyrics, imagery and music, the anxiety that Christians face every day about their sin. Don’t be afraid to allow this song to stir the emotions. You may just find that it brings you to tears as it does me.

‘East to West’ – Casting Crowns
(Album: Altar & the Door)

Here I am, Lord, and I’m drowning
in your sea of forgetfulness
The chains of yesterday surround me
I yearn for peace and rest
I don’t want to end up where You found me
And it echoes in my mind, keeps me awake tonight

I know You’ve cast my sin as far as the east is from the west
And I stand before You now as, as though I’ve never sinned
But today I feel like I’m just one mistake away from You leaving me this way

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Casting Crowns – Glorious Day (1)

When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were commanded to bow down to the Babylonian idol, they refused. They knew that God was able to deliver them, and they said as much to the king. “If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up” (Dan. 3:17-18). They said that their God could deliver them. But even if He decided not to, as far as they were concerned, the king could throw them into the furnace. They didn’t care. Of course they didn’t care about the furnace because they did care, and deeply, about honoring God. And this is the basis for sanctified apathy.

The more we care about honoring God, the less we will care about receiving honors from men. This is important because if we care about the opinions of men in the wrong way, it keeps us from being able to believe in Jesus (John 5:44).The more we care about being approved as a faithful workman by God, the less we will care if others condemn or oppose us on their own puny authority (2 Tim. 2:15).

Modern Christians are constantly exhorted to care. This is legitimate, indeed it is inescapable. But the problem is that we are regularly told to care about all the wrong things. “If we continue to maintain that God created the world in six days, we will not be granted academic respectability.” To which we must reply, well, who cares? Why should we care that the guardians of the academy believe that we are not intellectually respectable? They believe that the moose, the sperm whale and the meadowlark are all blood relations. Why do we want their seal of approval on our intellectual abilities? It is like asking Fidel Castro to comment on the economic viability of Microsoft.

Full article available here

Most Commented Posts

• Exist or real? (22)
• Hidden Opponents (13)
• Separation of Creation and Science (12)
• A different religion in classrooms (11)
• Transcendental Argument for God: Mitchell LeBlanc, Pt. 1 (10)
• Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence (10)
• Honoring God (10)

For those of you unaware – of which I assume this is the vast majority of you – the Q and A program pits pollies, professionals and “pundits” up against each other while passing the questioning over to the audience, whether to a member in the studio or to someone watching at home who participates via the program’s website. The idea is quite simple: grab a hodge-podge of celebrities, specialists and politicians, throw them in the same room, given them a topic and then let the public “have at it”.

And “have at it” was the operative word last Monday; but not against Prof. Dawkins – that was one parrot that wasn’t going to get knocked off his perch. But the other panelists, namely those who identify as theists, sure did get a hammering.

To give you some idea of what types of minds consisted of the panel of six guests, hosted by well-known Australian journalist Tony Evans, look no further than this list:

• Prof. Richard Dawkins – who needs no introduction to most of you, I’m sure
• Rabbi Jacqueline Ninio – a “progressive”, ordained female rabbie
• Prof Patrick McGorry – Australian of the Year and psychiatric specialist
• Sen Steven Fielding – leader of the Family First Party and an evangelical Christian
• MP Juli Bishop – Opposition Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party
• MP Tony Burke – Federal Minister of Agriculture

Sound like a fitting line-up to place alongside of Dawkins? I think not. In fact, I think the ABC was clearly showing an anti-theistic bias, effectively giving Dawkins a silver platter on which to serve his anti-God views. And boy – did the audience ever lap it up, too!

Whatever the producers of the show were thinking, they handpicked those guests that, I suspect, would fare poorly against Dawkins. Not only were the guests carefully selected for such a reason, but I’m sure the audience members (who must undergo a profiling application to “register” as an audience participant – kind of like a reality show, really, where the participants are selected to “best” represent a cross-section of “reality”?) were likewise handpicked to lean heavily towards Dawkins’ viewpoint. Quite conceivably, so were the questions fielded from the studio audience and the audience at home.

A quick word on the two most apparent theists on the panel – the Rabbi Ninio and Sen Fielding. Firstly, I’d discount any theist who describes themselves as a progressive; any such theist is bound not to have any real arguments for the watered-down, feel-good, smorgasbord faith that she contends. And Sen Fielding … don’t get me started. Faith, for Fielding, is something that’s “personal”, that everyone should have the freedom to pursue. In all seriousness, I lost count at how many times both Fielding and Ninio gave their weak-willed deflective “faith is personal” clap-trap much to the derision of the crowd. Is it any wonder Dawkins’ views came up trumps? Heck, Dawkins needn’t have said anything at all – the other panelists, trying to defend a place of faith in society, flaked around like fish on a hot rock and the audience squeezed in the lemon and salt.

Have a view of the program (it runs just shy of an hour) and see for yourself how pathetic the theist point of view was upheld against such nominal atheistic objections and obvious straw men. As I mentioned to Duane in an email at the end of last week, watching the show was like driving by a train wreck – the “representative” theists articulated themselves exceptionally poorly as they attempted, cowering with wild, emphatic hand gesturing, to avoid being skewed by a spear from Dawkins.

Frankly, I’m embarrassed for Prof. Dawkins – there was no oppostion there to stimulate his thinking at all.

I dare you to last beyond the first 15 minutes of this painful programming. Be sure to add your comments and thoughts below so we can discuss.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• The God Delusion: Updated (1)
• How to Yoke an Invisible Horse to a Tractor (0)
• The Greatest Hoax on Earth (5)
• Separation of Creation and Science (12)

In fact neither Dawkins or Armstrong appear to have been given the opportunity to respond to their opponents’ opening remarks - not that it would have been necessary though, as Armstrong spends half her time agreeing with Dawkins anyway.

The article begins, “We commissioned Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins to respond independently to the question “Where does evolution leave God?” Neither knew what the other would say. Here are the results.”

On Armstrong

Armstrong’s opening paragraph was virtually indistinguishable from Dawkins’ views and would make any atheistic philosopher proud.

Richard Dawkins has been right all along, of course—at least in one important respect. Evolution has indeed dealt a blow to the idea of a benign creator, literally conceived. It tells us that there is no Intelligence controlling the cosmos, and that life itself is the result of a blind process of natural selection, in which innumerable species failed to survive. The fossil record reveals a natural history of pain, death and racial extinction, so if there was a divine plan, it was cruel, callously prodigal and wasteful. Human beings were not the pinnacle of a purposeful creation; like everything else, they evolved by trial and error and God had no direct hand in their making. No wonder so many fundamentalist Christians find their faith shaken to the core.

By the way, just keep in mind that this is the theist !

Twice also in the article Armstrong focuses on certain events in the 17th century, as if these events were the turning point for Christians, who once regarded the scriptures as allegorical and their God as symbolic, now as brute facts driven by dogmatism against science and justified by an unparalleled literalistic approach to the scriptures. In her own words, “Christians began to read scripture with a literalness that is without parallel in religious history.”^[2]

I can only imagine that Armstrong is not talking about doctrines pertaining to resurrections or the trinity, but instead she is referring to the way that Christians understood the history of the world as explained in Genesis. If so, her claim is seriously misleading. Historically, good biblical hermeneutics (e.g. historical-grammatical exegesis) recognises that scripture uses various written forms at different times and in different places, and must be interpreted in light of that context. This is as true today as it was prior to the 17th century and it is the same principle that we apply to anything we read, from a good sci-fi novel or a Robert Frost poem, to the morning newspaper or a technical journal article, or even other historical works from different time periods.

In his treatment of this topic Andrew Kulikovsky says, “Analysis of the historical development of theological motifs is … ‘conspicuously absent’ from most theological works and commentaries” and “… there has been a great deal of misrepresentation of the church’s historical views concerning the Genesis cosmogony, the days of creation, and the age of the earth.”^[3] Armstrong in fact contributes to this misrepresentation with her implication concerning the position that Christians supposedly took only after the 17th century.

In fact, the apparent rise of what Armstrong calls literalism (a very improper use of the word in the context of this discussion but I’ll go with it for now at the risk of being misunderstood), the origin of which she appears to ascribe to Christian doctrines of the 17th century and beyond, can be found centuries – even millennia – prior to this and is representative of the view of many Christians since the beginning of Christianity.^[4][5] Even Augustine, whom Armstrong uses as an example of the allegorical approach to scripture, still believed that the creation of the world took place in an instant – rather than the widely held six literal days – and defended a recent creation against the long-age views of his time.^[6]

In his book review of The Genesis Debate (Edited by David G. Hagopian) Andrew Kulikovsky also says, “…probably the most valuable element of [Hall and Duncan's] contribution [to The Genesis Debate] is their summary of the history of interpretation of the Creation days, which clearly demonstrates that the literal day view was the dominant view up to the time of the scientific revolution.” Notice again, that this is completely opposite to the apparent claims of Armstrong!

Unfortunately that is not the worst part of Armstrong’s response. When she decides to part ways with the kinds of relatively straight-forward arguments that Dawkins offers, some of her comments can be politely describe as fluff.^[7]

Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason but to help us live creatively with realities for which there are no easy solutions and find an interior haven of peace; today, however, many have opted for unsustainable certainty instead. But can we respond religiously to evolutionary theory? Can we use it to recover a more authentic notion of God?

Darwin made it clear once again that—as Maimonides, Avicenna, Aquinas and Eckhart had already pointed out—we cannot regard God simply as a divine personality, who single-handedly created the world. This could direct our attention away from the idols of certainty and back to the “God beyond God.” The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry. Religion is not an exact science but a kind of art form that, like music or painting, introduces us to a mode of knowledge that is different from the purely rational and which cannot easily be put into words. At its best, it holds us in an attitude of wonder, which is, perhaps, not unlike the awe that Mr. Dawkins experiences—and has helped me to appreciate —when he contemplates the marvels of natural selection.

But what of the pain and waste that Darwin unveiled? All the major traditions insist that the faithful meditate on the ubiquitous suffering that is an inescapable part of life; because, if we do not acknowledge this uncomfortable fact, the compassion that lies at the heart of faith is impossible. The almost unbearable spectacle of the myriad species passing painfully into oblivion is not unlike some classic Buddhist meditations on the First Noble Truth (“Existence is suffering”), the indispensable prerequisite for the transcendent enlightenment that some call Nirvana—and others call God.

No doubt her affiliation with the Jesus Seminar and her pluralistic views of religion put her in good stead to make such a fluffy assessment? She is quite clearly not a Christian. I read and listen to a lot of Christian theists and apologists and after a while you develop a kind of sixth sense for those who actually take the Christian worldview seriously and those who do not. Based largely on the fluff, Armstrong appears to be one of the latter,^[8][9] despite whatever protests she may make to the contrary.  This, as you will see, is obvious even to Dawkins.

On Dawkins

Dawkins response to this question on the other hand was quite clear. As a Christian and a serious skeptic of the evolutionary worldview that Dawkins champions, I could find many points on which to disagree with his contribution. However, I particularly liked the plain talking in his concluding remarks, which leave no-one with any doubt about his position.

Where does that leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God’s redundancy notice, his pink slip. But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant. A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must at least [be] as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain. God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place. … The mainstream belief of the world’s peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They’ll be right. [emphasis mine]

Dawkins may not have had prior knowledge of Armstrong’s comments, but it appears that he had a very good idea of what to expect, because his comments appear tailored to address the kind of fluff espoused by “theists” like Armstrong – and I use that term very loosely because I wonder how the term should even apply to those who so completely embrace the evolutionary world view.

How should Christians respond

I don’t see why Christians should respond any different to an atheist on this question. In fact Dawkins’ closing remarks will do quite nicely, at least as a start. If you understand the two systems properly, you know that the two of them are mutually exclusive. If evolution is true, Christianity must be false, and any attempts to make the two agree is futile, resulting in theological and philosophical inconsistencies. Charles Spurgeon knew it. Dawkins knows it. Informed Christians know it. Armstrong doesn’t, or doesn’t seem to think it matters.

Summary

Obviously my critique has been much less about the claims of Dawkins and focused more on the way Armstrong attempted to answer the question. Why? Well given the question being discussed I knew exactly what to expect from Dawkins and he did not disappoint. He’s had a lot of practice articulating his view and does it well for the most part. I also think Dawkins is right in his assessment if the evolutionary world view is true. Theistic Evolutionist’s will, by definition, disagree.

But I have a particular intolerance for theological positions that attempt to make these systems agree (especially when it is laced with postmodern language) and that is why I spent so much time analysing how Armstrong chose to answer this question. By the end of it I really thought she just should not have bothered. There was very little substance in there for serious thinkers. That does not mean that some people will not find her comments appealing - that is, once they figure out exactly what it is they want her words to mean? But I think Christians who care about the truth and do not simply want their ears tickled,^[10] will quickly realise they have very little in common with Armstrong’s views and that is probably because Armstrong herself is not a Christian.

That The Australian framed this as a debate should embarrass them. But I really wish they would not give Karen Armstrong further opportunities to muddy the waters of Christian theism. There are others who are more capable of bringing clarity to this topic than Armstrong,^[1] and if these two responses are weighed on those merits, Dawkins did a much better job of clarifying his position – even if he is still woefully wrong (not to mention lost).

But what if we reverse the question; What if we Christians who hold the scriptures in the highest regard were to ponder this instead: ”Where does God leave evolution?” Is the engine room of evolution - mutations and natural selection (and the evolutionary biologists that rely on such dogma) – now “out of a job”? See, the question is never phrased that way because God is seen as an unreal subjective concept that must conform to the truth of evolution.  But rather, did Jesus not say, I am the way and the truth and the life? What then are the implications for evolution if Christ speaks the truth; if God’s revelation is true? Should we not answer as Spurgeon did – “If God’s Word be true, evolution is a lie.”

1. The best response I have heard by a Christian on this topic is by John Woodmorappe, upon which the title of this post is based. His response is not so much concerned with the moral implications of evolution, but instead his brief essay deals largely with the nonsensical idea of God-guided evolution. I understand also that Dinesh D’Souza is quite a formidable defender of Christianity and a Theistic Evolutionist to boot. However I have not had enough exposure to his views to know how he might answer this question.
2. Yeah, “religious history” … as opposed to real history, apparently? The juxtaposition of these two words imply that the history recorded in the Bible is of no more significance to Armstrong than the history of the universe according to Star Wars (i.e. George Lucas), the history of Middle Earth according to Tolkien, or the history of Midkemia according to Feist. However when talking about evolutionary history, evolution is an apparent redundancy!
3. Kulikovsky, Andrew S., Creation, Fall, Restoration: A Biblical Theology of Creation, (Mentor, Scotland, 2009), p.59
4. Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Compromise, (Master Books, Arizona, 2004), Chapter 3 “The History of Interpretation of Genesis 1-11″, p.107-139
5. Much of the first paragraph (below) is deduced from page 67 of Kulikovsky’s new book, ‘Creation, Fall, Restoration’:
   The reason Armstrong believes that “literalism” emerged from the 17th century is because there was a major philosophical shift occurring in the church throughout this period. Principles and ideas external to Scripture, especially Greek philosophy, had an increasing influence on both the church and society as a whole. So in the 17th century church creeds began to include and uphold six literal creation days, because many others in the church influenced by the philosophies of men began to formulate alternative interpretations in light of this new “evidence” for the great antiquity of the earth. Episcopius’ (1586-1643) Gap Theory for example, proposed a long period of time passing between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.
   It is quite a normal thing to expect creeds be developed to defend and make clear what was already accepted. The Nicene creed (325AD) for example defended the nature of Christ against Arius, who declared that Jesus was a created being, which was also an attack on the Trinity. But as is quite obvious from Scripture and other ancient writings, Christians did not suddenly begin believing this in the 4th century. Rather, creeds act as yardsticks to correct beliefs. The same thing was happening in the 17th century with regard to the “literalism” that Armstrong thinks appears without precedence.
6. Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Compromise, (Master Books, Arizona, 2004), Chapter 3 “The History of Interpretation of Genesis 1-11″, p.118-119
7. Similarly, what I call fluff, Albert Mohler calls “elegant nonsense”. See his review of the same article here.
8. In a review of Karen Armstrong’s book The Bible: A Biography, Alexander Carpenter quotes her as saying, “It doesn’t really matter what you believe as long as it leads you to practical compassion.”
9. I also place Peter Sellick in this category, although his language is slightly less “fluffy”. See my review of his 2005 article “Intelligent Design – Damaging Good Science and Good Theology” [note: this is a link to my old website. I will be reviewing this article and reposting on Aristophrenium in the near future, at which point the old article will be removed and this link will be updated]
10. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires” – 2 Timothy 4:3 [NASB]

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Compromise at the Highest Level in the Sydney Anglican Diocese (0)
• The God Delusion: Updated (1)
• “Discussing” God, Science and Sanity (8)
• The Greatest Hoax on Earth (5)

Jonathan Sarfati’s response to Richard Dawkins’ latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth is quite adequately titled The Greatest Hoax on Earth.

Note, this is not a book review as I haven’t even yet had the privilege of holding it my hands, let alone read any of it. But having read many of the articles and books that Dr. Sarfati produces, knowing also that he has a high authority for scripture, and having seen/heard him debate and speak in person on several occasions, I can hardly think of a person I’d rather read in response to Dawkins.

From CMI’s store-page advertisement:

Richard Dawkins, the undisputed high priest of evolution/atheism, says his book The Greatest Show on Earth: the evidence for evolution is the first time he has presented all the evidence for evolution/long ages. It is promoted as an unanswerable demolition of creation. Scientist, logician, chessmaster and author of the world’s biggest-selling creationist book, CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati, relentlessly demolishes Dawkin’s claims point-by-point, showing biblical creation makes more sense of the evidence.

The introductory chapter of the book is available to read for free online.

The book is only AU$20 for single orders. But if you can spare it I’d recommend you fork out the extra 20 bucks and get two additional recent DVD presentations by Dr. Sarfati as well: Evolution and the Holocaust and Leaving Your Brains at the Church Door

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• The God Delusion: Updated (1)
• “Discussing” God, Science and Sanity (8)
• How to Yoke an Invisible Horse to a Tractor (0)
• Separation of Creation and Science (12)
• The meaning of ‘day’ in Genesis 1 (8)

The argument

To briefly refresh our minds, allow me to repeat what his argument had been. (And we must keep in mind that it targeted the biblical God.)

(1) If God exists, then God is necessarily omnipotent and necessarily triune.

(2) If God is necessarily omnipotent, then God necessarily can bring about any logically possible state of affairs.

(3) If God necessarily can bring about any logically possible state of affairs, then God necessarily can bring about a state of affairs that is brought about by a being that is not necessarily triune.

(4) If God necessarily can bring about a state of affairs that is brought about by a being that is not necessarily triune, then God is not necessarily triune.

(5) Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.

As I pointed out in my rebuttal, this argument does not belong to LeBlanc so much as it belongs to atheologist Michael Martin, [1] with LeBlanc substituting “triune” for every instance that Martin used “omniscient.” Given the doctrine of divine simplicity, such a substitution should be acceptable for the Christian.

What Martin was trying to show, and by extension LeBlanc, is that the existence of God is disproven by reason of logical contradiction; i.e., that God cannot exist. He takes two particular attributes of God and attempts to show that a contradiction results. In the case of this argument, those attributes are omnipotence and triunity.

As indicated in my aforementioned rebuttal, (1) and (2) are not contested since they reflect orthodox Christian doctrine. With regard to (3), LeBlanc later informed me that “a being that is not necessarily triune” would be some human, such as Bob who in some way caused flooding in Toronto (e.g., “Ryft on ‘A Possible Disproof of God’s Existence’”). Consequently, my previous rebuttal loses its traction, since I hadn’t understood that a secondary being was playing a relevant role (i.e., I’d thought God was the only being employed in his argument). But his argument is not saved by this clarification, since the derailment occurs now at (4) instead.

The analysis

We can accept (1) and (2), and it seems we can also accept (3) if it is predicated on God bringing about a state of affairs that was brought about by Bob. However, it’s not at all clear how (4) should follow. If God should bring about (principal cause) a state affairs that is brought about by Bob (instrumental cause), [2] how does it follow that God’s nature is thereby identical to Bob’s nature? That is, how did God become not triune by virtue of Bob being not triune? LeBlanc does not say, nor is it immediately obvious.

Perhaps LeBlanc rejects there being any distinction between types of causes, such that God is said to be the instrumental cause of all effects. If that is the case, then I think it becomes obvious how (4) follows. But if God is the instrumental cause of all effects, then all effects (or states of affairs) amount to “God in motion”—which in essence amounts to panentheism and is dramatically antithetical to God as revealed in the Bible (who the argument is intended to address, i.e., it qualifies as a straw man). So if that notion and its presuppositions are what is proposed by (4), then it must run afoul of such doctrines as aseity, necessary being, divine simplicity, transcendence and so forth, which tell us that necessarily nothing of God’s nature is identical to his creation. What God ordains should come to pass (principal cause) is a product of his nature; however, the means by which it comes to pass (instrumental cause) is a product of his creation which he exists independent of. So Bob by nature is not necessarily triune, but this has no bearing on whether or not God by nature is triune.

Hopefully I have not misunderstood his argument still. We’ll have to wait and see how he responds to find out if I’ve grasped his point aright.

References

1. Michael Martin. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Temple University Press, 1990. p. 310 (as cited by LeBlanc).

2. Bob: instrumental cause that is itself an effect; contingent. God: principal cause that is not itself an effect; necessary. So, not identical; i.e., distinguishable types of causes.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Mitchell LeBlanc and an Argument for Atheism (4)
• Transcendental Argument for God: Mitchell LeBlanc, Pt. 1 (10)
• Gratuitous Evil: Q&A (28/Feb/2010) (2)
• Atheism and the Problem of Evil: Pt. 1 (0)

(HT: Chris Bolt at Choosing Hats.)

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Transcendental Argument for God: Mitchell LeBlanc, Pt. 1 (10)