Fallen and Flawed

“Injustice simply didn’t make sense in a creedless society and ethics as a human construct was absurd.”

Well said Demian, that sentence goes a long way. The justice and ethics easily extend into nearly all everything our secular society embraces so dearly, like environmentalism, personal liberty, and the rule of law. Without God as the final and true standard, all of that other stuff is nonsense.

The validity of any measurement relies on its traceability to a standard. The standard must exist independent of that which is measured. If human affairs are measured by a standard of human affairs then there really is no measurement, only chaos.

Whether you believe or not, we are all fortunate to have, and benefit from, the standard that is God. I find that a compelling reason to believe. Finally, just to keep this comment in perspective, we can intellectualize all we want about this stuff but even the best human intellect (of which I am not a possessor ) cannot encircle God. I have faith in that.

Demian,

Thank you for writing this, really. I know you could’ve written an article that blatantly lashed out at non-believers, essentially saying “na-na-na-na-boo-boo, look who deconverted from atheism now”. But you didn’t, and I appreciate that.

However, I do have some questions about Wilson’s account and some questions about some of your statements.

“But there was just one thing. He couldn’t shake the sense that there was more to life than just material.”

Almost every human being feels thing by sense, but our senses are prone to mislead us quite often. What I want to know is not, do I sense that there is more to life than just the material; but rather: is there any evidence that there is more to life than the material?

“What Wilson found was that after the novelty of his dramatic abandonment of faith wore off, he felt bleak and muddled more than ever. Religion wasn’t about argument alone. Religion embraced the whole person. Body and soul.”

I’m not here to chide Wilson for his emotions – actually, I sympathize with him and I think his trauma is understandable. I felt some of the same emotions shortly after my deconversion – I underwent an existential crisis of sorts, and at some times I felt depressed, and sometimes I felt directionless, at first. Religion can help give a framework for human meaning and community and experience – but I have come to believe this framework cannot explain many realities of our existence. It’s not that all religion is an inherently bad framework, but the idea of reducing the entire universe to a single framework, especially one that seems to have its share of contradictions and absurdities, became untenable for me.

Once I could reflect on my own values and the shared existence of humanity and all living things, once I could gain more grounding apart from the tradition of my childhood, my life has improved greatly, and I feel even better than I did before. Yes, deconversion can be quite a rude awakening, but it can also be liberating once one is accustomed to it. It’s hard to break free, because then you have to be adrift for awhile before you know where you’re going, and responsibility is a hard thing that comes from freedom, though it’s something I value and I think the struggle is worth it.

“At the bottom of Wilson’s critique is this: Materialism can not adequately explain our complex world. Christianity, on the other hand, as a working blueprint for life, can.”

I am baffled by this, you’re right. But I’m not baffled in the way you may have expected.

Wilson really believes that there are not any plausible naturalistic explanations for the diversity of human languages?

Shall we assume that God put the Spanish conquistadors in Mexico and then gave the Mexicans their very own accent? Or did God put the Afrikaans in South Africa or the Quebecois in Quebec or the Cajuns in Louisiana and give special accents to all of those groups? Frankly, I find Wilson’s argument preposterous. That’s why I’m baffled by it, Demian.

But that’s not the only thing: it is also asserted that Christianity has a viable, plausible “working blueprint for life”.

You and Wilson are claiming that while there are many things that naturalism cannot explain, Christianity is coherent and sensible.

I believe the precise language was “Materialism cannot explain our complex world”. And Christianity can?

I’m going to try and give Christianity its best shot, so if I say something that is a straw man, or something that is only nominally related to Christian doctrine, please tell me. Really.

Okay, here goes:

Humanity is inherently sinful, because of Adam and Eve’s transgressions.

Was humanity inherently sinful before the Fall? From a Christian perspective, I doubt it, because would God have created anything that was inherently sinful? Would the god of Christianity have purposely created something that was less than perfect?

So, humanity is fallen and flawed, like your blog title says. And the evil in the world is the fault of depraved humanity; it’s not a state of being that was inherent in the world, but rather a state of being that was brought into the world through humanity’s transgressions.

Am I on par so far?

So, that is why there is evil. But what is evil, according to Christianity? This goes to the heart of Wilson’s questions about the nature of injustice.

On this question, I am not so sure how a Christian would answer. Is evil that which is in violation of God’s commandments, is evil that which is in opposition to God’s nature? It’s hard to pin down exactly.

Essentially, suffering occurs because humanity has fallen and is in opposition to God’s nature, and this is the evil in the world, this is the injustice of it all. Is this how you and Wilson would approach the question? If so, I can move on to my next point.

Christianity assumes that the suffering in the world is not inherent in its existence, because the Christian God would not deliberately create something that inherently inflicts suffering, right? Or maybe He would? I’m actually not sure – I assume Plantinga and others may beg to differ somewhat. But traditionally, Christianity has assumed that God created a perfect world soured by the transgressions of humanity.

If suffering is inherent in the nature of the world, and not brought into the world by the transgressions of humanity – if the evil that happens in the world cannot possibly be the direct result of a Biblical Fall as depicted in Genesis, then traditional Christianity is falsified. Do you agree?

I have found that suffering persisted in our world for an incredibly long time before the first existence of humanity, therefore I believe it is impossible that humanity is the direct cause of evil and injustice in our world, and that therefore almost all types of Christianity are either absurd or implausible.

If humanity did not bring injustice into the world, then Christianity does not have a coherent working blueprint for life, nor can it adequately explain the complexity of our world.

Naturalism is a much better explanation because it does not require that humanity brought suffering into the world, but rather the indifference of the competition among organisms can greatly account for why so much suffering is inflicted. Naturalism predicts injustice.

The world as we know it is much more compatible with naturalism than it is with Christianity.

I could have talked more about ethics as a human concept, and I can if you want me to, but I think I have said enough for now. Thanks for not shunning a verbose and contrarian commenter.

An Atheist’s slow return to religion

A freudian slip, Demian? I thought Christianity wasn’t a religion!

As usual, Teleprompter has articulated very good response and I look forward to the followup. From my perspective, I see three things:

1) Emotion playing too large a part in A.N. Wilson’s reasoning.

he felt bleak and muddled more than ever

Sorry, but I don’t see how this can be reduced to a flaw with his worldview, no matter what he believes or doesn’t believe. Perhaps he suffers from depression, or personal circumstance. I myself am prone to the occasional bit of melancholy, and having spend more time as a christian than not, I can say that religion didn’t help, in fact it can probably get in the way of dealing with the emotion properly.

2. He doesn’t properly understand natural selection.

3.

Christianity, on the other hand, as a working blueprint for life, can.

Christianity’s “explanation” for life can be summed up the same way as the other creation myths – “God did it”. This is no really an explanation, rather it’s an avoidance of an explantion. It doesn’t actually help either, because it only leaves you wondering the next obvious question – who made God?

Finally, if you’re expecting a worldview to explain everything perfectly then you’re setting yourself up for disappointment, either as a doubting theist or a doubting atheist.

Whew, excuse all the typos. It’s quite early in the morning here (by my standards, not yours, Demian!)

James: I share your concerns with Wilson’s conversion…so the “return to religion” was intentional. I’m not sure he’s there–that is, to an authentic born again experience. So I didn’t say “Christianity.”

I’m skeptical of all claims to conversion. I need to see substantial fruit. And I’m basing Wilson’s on two articles he wrote and one very short interview. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

[By the way, glad to hear from you. For a while there, thought I lost ya.]

Tele: I wanted to be very careful about presenting this post, b/c high-profile conversions are meaningless. High-profile de-conversions are quite popular, too. So they cancel each other out.

Besides, like I told James, I’m skeptical.

If you promise not to pounce on me [it's late] I’ll affirm your summary of Christianity’s view of suffering for argument sake. You’re right on. A good way to talk about sin before the Fall involves the thought that Adam was capable of sinning. It was perfect pre-Fall. What that looks like and why or how Adam sinned…I’m not there. That’s quite a difficult thing to speculate.

Second, your argument for naturalism hinges on suffering existing before man. I don’t quite understand that. How could suffering exist before mankind? And how do you know? Furthermore, how do you define suffering in terms of naturalism? In other words, if the natural state of things is beast eat beast, how can you say “that’s suffering?” How are you defining suffering, that’s really what’s at stake.

Tim Keller’s [pastor from Manhattan] got a great sermon on injustice and suffering. It’s worth a listen. At least to sharpen your defenses.

Finally, I’d define sin as disobedience to God. Some would define it as idolizing anything besides God. I like that.

“Without God as the final and true standard, all of that other stuff is nonsense.”

This idea is foolishly naive as it flies in the face of actual evidence. For example, Japan has an extremely low number of Christians, yet has rates of violent crime that are considerably lower than in the United States, a nation with among the highest percentage of people who identify as Christians. In fact, survey after survey in the United States show that atheists represent a far lower percentage of imprisoned criminals than Christians. How can this be?

You might invoke the “No True Scotsman Fallacy” and claim the millions of violent felons who claim to be Christian don’t actually believe in God, but it’s obvious how silly such an argument will be since these jailed Christians can’t possibly be claimed to be atheists.

How then do you explain the fact that atheists commit fewer crimes than people who believe in God?

“Injustice simply didn’t make sense in a creedless society and ethics as a human construct was absurd.”

Nonsense. Even simple examples from game theory show that behaviors such as altruism and cooperation typically yield rewards that anarchy does not.

“Materialism can not adequately explain our complex world.”

I would caution any Christian against using this argument to prop up their faith as history has shown that such thinking can be devastating when science makes discoveries that intrude into areas once thought to be the exclusive magisteria of God.

For example, if you stood outside on a cloudless day in the year 1870 and looked up at the sun, its workings were a complete and absolute mystery. At the time, the only known explanation for the heat and light the sun produces was via combustion. Scientists already knew the mass of the sun, how much energy it radiated and its elemental composition so it would seem that a fairly simple combustion calculation would work to estimate how long the sun had been burning. Trouble was, the calculations were blatantly wrong because they demanded that the sun be barely a few hundred years old to radiate as much energy by combustion as measurements indicated.

At this point, scientists were completely at a loss to explain how the sun could keep shining century after century when it was clear that the sun’s mass wasn’t sufficient to provide enough fuel to burn for very long.

If you were a Christian at this time you could easily invoke God as the miraculous mover that allowed the sun to do something that was clearly impossible by all known standards. You could proudly boast to even the brightest human being that every sunrise slapped science in the face and showed off the mysterious power of God.

Hopefully, you see where this is going.

By the early 20th century, however, the process of nuclear fusion had been discovered, a principle of physics that was completely unknown to even the smartest scientist of the 18th and 19th centuries. Now, the calculations perfectly explained that nuclear processes accounted for the enormous energy the sun gives off and showed exactly why so little mass was required for the sun to shine so long.

Mystery solved.

So what if in 1870 you anchored your faith in the notion that the lack of an explanation for something in the natural world as obvious as the consistent fire of the sun was clear proof of God? Suppose you made a long list of “proofs” of God by listing things 1870 science couldn’t explain?

By 1920 every sunrise would remind you that your proof of God wasn’t just lost — it was wrong.

Have faith if you wish, but beware the idea that ignorance will strengthen it.

Koowan, listen, crime rates of Christians doesn’t prove that God’s standard doesn’t exist. As Matthew pointed out, we all benefit from God’s standard. You obviously have a sense of justice. So do the Japanese. You have to account for that. They do too.

Also, good warning to those Christians who anchor their faith in God through unexplained natural phenomenon. That is, indeed, very naive and simplistic.

That’s why I always like to point to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. An event well documented and falsifiable, an event that demonstrates God’s mercy on a people who’ve walked away and snubbed him and who continue to accumulate judgement against a God who’s holiness demands justice.

But that judgment can be removed. It was removed. By the cross of Christ. An event that satisfied the wrath of God toward people who disobey him.

I think you know where this is going.

I have a feeling you scoff at the notion of sin. Judgement. The crucifixion of Christ. If that’s the case, I encourage you to re-consider.

If what the Gospel says is true [we have peace with God through the death of Christ], then you are accountable to God for your sins. A just judge wouldn’t overlook the crimes of a serial child killer, and neither does a just God overlook the crimes of humanity against him.

Christ, though, through the cross, brokered the appeasement [that satisfaction He demands for crimes against Him] with God for you. That’s where I place my faith. And I’d encourage you to do the same thing.

I want you to know that I’m now praying for you [as I do for everyone who comments here]. I will pray that God will open your eyes to the majesty of Christ and soften your heart to love and adore God, your creator.

I don’t know you, but I think it would be precious to fellowship with you as a believer. Moreover, I cherish your soul. And I mean that sincerely, because I sincerely believe in what Jesus said about those who reject him [if he is indeed who he says he is, God, then, I think you'll agree, what he says is true and I'd be foolish not to believe him]…namely, we are to fear God, who can destroy both the body and soul, which is the fate of those who reject the Son, Jesus Christ, whom God sent to draw people to him, like you. Ask God to draw you, Koowan.

Thank you for your comment. Look forward to hearing from you.

@Koowan
re: Japan, Making the direct correlation between the low crime rate in Japan and lack of Christians might be a disconnect. Maybe crime is low because of something silly like they eat more fish, are better at making reliable cars, or smoke more cigarettes. Maybe it’s due to not such silly things like strict weapons laws, a prosperous economy, a more homogenous population, and a culture based on shame where a perp walk would cut you off from your societal support system.

re: atheists in prison, I’ll point you toward “The Irrational Atheist”, p. 14-26 (google for a free download). In short, if you’re counting only “high church” atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, and college professors, then yes they are less likely to be in jail. When you include “low church” atheists or people who don’t believe in God but don’t self-define with the title atheist the numbers get more balanced. For all of recorded history people have done bad things, religious or not.

re: creedless society and game theory, I agree that altruism and cooperation don’t need a creed to yield rewards. What you do need a creed to define is the “good” in altruism. Stalin & Pol Pot certainly got plenty of people to cooperate toward their common “good”. But was their “good” ultimately good? I think it’s hard to say without a non-relativistic definition of good.

re: materialism, if it’s correct the discussion we’re having is just the meaningless result of so many atoms and particles behaving according to their physical properties and the laws that govern them, then what’s the point? It can’t distinguish between a lion killing the cubs of a lioness in order to breed his own and you doing the same thing to another man’s kids. I find that lacking as a world view.

The metaphysical makes more sense if you believe the historicity of a risen Christ, a point with a great degree of physical evidence.

@tele re: “Naturalism predicts injustice.” I think you’re bouncing back and forth between systems. Naturalism can predict self-preserving and self-propagating behavior that we as humans perceive as injustice but it can’t really address what an injustice is. You and I would agree that murder of an innocent person is injustice and that both of our world views predict it will happen. But like I said above I don’t think materialism can call murder right or wrong any more than it can call a bird eating an innocent worm right or wrong.

I read Wilson’s book on Hitler and Wagner after learning of Wilson’s spiritual journey.

The debate will go round and round on the rationalism of either of belief or non-belief, but each person will eventually decide (and re-decide) according to how they see the evidence.

Wilson’s thinking makes more sense to me than those who reject the evidence for God.

Thanks for the post.

-Steve

“I encourage you to re-consider.” Wow! Such love, such patience in that statement. Well said. Well said. You are so good at this, Demian. I hope that the Lord is able to continually use your words.

Thank you, Adam.