Hello my blogging friends,
Well, we had another FANTASTIC discussion at the Science and Theology Conference this morning (Tuesday). The presenter was Jeffery Schloss, Professor of Biology at Westmont University in Malibu California (Westmont is a conservative Christian University). He is a leading expert on competing models of Evolutionary Theory. With a breathtaking encylopedic command of the material (the man seems to have read everything by everyone on every topic related to evolution!) he presented an overview of the various ways contemporary evolutionists explain the apparent directionality of evolution.
Against most other experts, Schloss presented a vast array of evidence in making the case that evolution seems to be driven by purpose. There IS "progress," and at the apex of this progress are beings capable of choosing love (but also capable of choosing hate). Even if you don't accept evolution (I know some of my blog readers are young earth creationists), you'd have to appreciate the strength of Schloss' argument.
Now for the issue of the day. As you might expect, I tried to throw a monkey wrench into the proposal by pointing out that, while I grant there seems to be evidence of purpose in evolution, there's also clear evidence of purposelessness -- or worse, a purpose to destroy. This is Richard Dawkins' (the famous scientific atheist who just wrote The God Delusion) main argument against belief in God. Evolutionary history, Dawkins writes, is a history of carnage, waste, and pain.
In response, Schloss acknowledged the problem, offered a few reflections about the constraints God must work within to direct evolution to the production of creatures with our capacities, and the like. I then asked him if he felt evolution HAD to be this destructive to produce creatures like us, and, interestingly enough, he denied this. He admitted natural selection didn't require any death or violence at all.
How interesting.
Well, I felt I'd already hogged too much time, so I shut up. BUT, two hours later I found myself being driven to the Airport with him, so I asked him point blank: "Given the high profile that Satan and fallen powers have in the New Testament, why couldn't we explain the carnage that is evolutionary history by simply admitting that God isn't the ONLY influencer in the process? Why not suppose that Satan and fallen powers also influence evolutionary history? And since you (Jeff Schloss) admit that evolutionary history COULD have unfolded without this vast bloodshed, don't you as a believer HAVE to introduce a demonic influence at some point to explain why it DIDN'T unfold this way?"
His response was truly astounding. He chided me for not being explicit about what I was getting at in my question during the session. "I would have loved the opportunity to address this, and my answer would have been bold," he said. Then, getting rather animated, he said, "I'm hestitant to admit it in academic circles because no one seems to take it seriously, but I think there is absolutely NO WAY to adequately account for the carnage in nature unless you accept there's an evil destructive force that pervades nature -- the one the New Testament calls Satan." He said that he believed that God is always working for life, even through the evolutionary process, while Satan is always working to destroy life, even through the evolutionary process.
YES, YES! YES!!
Folks, this is the first live, professional scientist I've ever found who agrees with me -- and he's one of the leaders in the field!
I then talked about the possibility of "coming out" with this conviction and doing a joint Science and Theology academic paper on "The Satan-in-Nature Hypothesis." He said he'd love to. Like me, he thinks it’s the missing variable in theodicy thinking.
And, we both agreed, the vast majority of our academic peers will regard us as looney.
So what.
Blessings on you all.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query evolution. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query evolution. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Evolution As Cosmic Warfare
Well, believe it or not, I'm going to take a break today from obsessing on the problem of violence in the Old Testament and instead obsess on the problem of violence in nature. (I promise to return to the O.T. soon -- we'll deal with Peter Craigie's The Problem of War in the Old Testament).
Some of you who have been visiting this blog for ten months or more may recall that I was part of a three week science and theology conference last summer. It focused on integrating science with the open view of the future. (I blogged on the conference and topics surrounding it from June 18 to July 30, 2007). Among the many topics we discussed was the issue of explaining how an all-good Creator could have designed -- or at least allowed for -- a system of evolution that contained, if not necessitated, horrific violence, suffering and waste. This is the problem of "natural" evil, and it's eloquently expressed by Tennyson in his famous poem In Memoriam.
Neither nature today, nor the evolutionary process that led up to it, look like they they were designed and governed by a non-violent God of love!
Why am I obsessing on this now? Well, in about an hour I'm catching a plane to California to attend a follow-up conference to the one I attended last summer. All who attended last year's conference will be delivering papers on aspects of science and the open view of the future that were in whole or in part inspired by that conference. These papers will then be edited and (hopefully) published in a book. My essay addresses the problem of violence in nature and is entitled "Evolution As Cosmic Warfare: A Biblical Approach to So-Call 'Natural' Evil." (I know this will aggravate some readers who hold to a young earth creationist view, but my paper assumes that the earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old and that some form of evolution was involved in bringing about humans and the animal kingdom as we find them today).
As my title suggests, the rather controversial thesis I will defend in my essay is that, given what the Bible has to say about Satan and other fallen angels, Christian theists have no reason to assume that the carnage and waste that characterizes the evolutionary process and nature today is all the result of how God designed nature. Indeed, I suggest we view evolution as a sort of epoch-long warfare between the life-affirming creativity of an all-good God, on the one hand, and the on-going corrupting influence of malevolent cosmic forces, on the other. The fact that God is nevertheless able to achieve his creational objectives (for example, the creation of humans in his image) through this corrupted process reflects God's sovereign wisdom in bringing good out of evil and overcoming evil with good.
I end my paper by defending and tweaking a proposal put forth by Ralph Winter and a team of colleagues at the Roberta Winter Institute that reconciles this evolution-as-cosmic-warfare perspective with Genesis 1 and 2. Some of you may recall that last summer I announced I felt I had to modify my "gap" interpretation of Genesis 1 because it conflicted with the geological evidence. At the same time, I began to consider an alternative reading of Genesis 1 that I'd recently come across, proposed by Ralph Winter (I posted on this topic 7/30/07). Well, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Ralph Winter's interpretation offers the most plausible way of resolving the problems my old "gap" theory faced. (You can read Winter's proposal -- entitled "Unfinished Epic" -- here).
I don't necessarily agree with everything Winter proposes, but in my essay I use the basic framework of his work to depict Eden as the first expression of "the mustard seed kingdom." It was a supernaturally created "Kingdom oasis" that God carved out in the midst of a demonically oppressed and corrupted world. Eden was to function as a sort of beachhead from which humans were to partner with God, expand his Kingdom against the kingdom of darkness and ultimately transform the whole earth to become the domain over which God reigns -- the Kingdom of God. The beachhead was unfortunately lost to hostile forces, thanks to the failure of the original humans. But defeating malevolent forces, winning back the earth, and having humans reign with Christ over the earth (2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 5:10; 20:6; 22:5) remains God's primary objective and the primary calling of humans.
One of the things I'll be doing out in California is meeting with Ralph Winter and his team to brainstorm about the evolution-as-cosmic-warfare thesis and this new way of reading Genesis. It should be a very interesting time. I'll let you know how it goes.
Right now I've got to go catch a plane!
Blessings on all you co-rulers with Christ!!
Greg
Some of you who have been visiting this blog for ten months or more may recall that I was part of a three week science and theology conference last summer. It focused on integrating science with the open view of the future. (I blogged on the conference and topics surrounding it from June 18 to July 30, 2007). Among the many topics we discussed was the issue of explaining how an all-good Creator could have designed -- or at least allowed for -- a system of evolution that contained, if not necessitated, horrific violence, suffering and waste. This is the problem of "natural" evil, and it's eloquently expressed by Tennyson in his famous poem In Memoriam.
Man…trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation’s final law –
Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shrek’d against his creed.
Tennyson
In Memoriam
And love Creation’s final law –
Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shrek’d against his creed.
Tennyson
In Memoriam
Neither nature today, nor the evolutionary process that led up to it, look like they they were designed and governed by a non-violent God of love!
Why am I obsessing on this now? Well, in about an hour I'm catching a plane to California to attend a follow-up conference to the one I attended last summer. All who attended last year's conference will be delivering papers on aspects of science and the open view of the future that were in whole or in part inspired by that conference. These papers will then be edited and (hopefully) published in a book. My essay addresses the problem of violence in nature and is entitled "Evolution As Cosmic Warfare: A Biblical Approach to So-Call 'Natural' Evil." (I know this will aggravate some readers who hold to a young earth creationist view, but my paper assumes that the earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old and that some form of evolution was involved in bringing about humans and the animal kingdom as we find them today).
As my title suggests, the rather controversial thesis I will defend in my essay is that, given what the Bible has to say about Satan and other fallen angels, Christian theists have no reason to assume that the carnage and waste that characterizes the evolutionary process and nature today is all the result of how God designed nature. Indeed, I suggest we view evolution as a sort of epoch-long warfare between the life-affirming creativity of an all-good God, on the one hand, and the on-going corrupting influence of malevolent cosmic forces, on the other. The fact that God is nevertheless able to achieve his creational objectives (for example, the creation of humans in his image) through this corrupted process reflects God's sovereign wisdom in bringing good out of evil and overcoming evil with good.
I end my paper by defending and tweaking a proposal put forth by Ralph Winter and a team of colleagues at the Roberta Winter Institute that reconciles this evolution-as-cosmic-warfare perspective with Genesis 1 and 2. Some of you may recall that last summer I announced I felt I had to modify my "gap" interpretation of Genesis 1 because it conflicted with the geological evidence. At the same time, I began to consider an alternative reading of Genesis 1 that I'd recently come across, proposed by Ralph Winter (I posted on this topic 7/30/07). Well, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Ralph Winter's interpretation offers the most plausible way of resolving the problems my old "gap" theory faced. (You can read Winter's proposal -- entitled "Unfinished Epic" -- here).
I don't necessarily agree with everything Winter proposes, but in my essay I use the basic framework of his work to depict Eden as the first expression of "the mustard seed kingdom." It was a supernaturally created "Kingdom oasis" that God carved out in the midst of a demonically oppressed and corrupted world. Eden was to function as a sort of beachhead from which humans were to partner with God, expand his Kingdom against the kingdom of darkness and ultimately transform the whole earth to become the domain over which God reigns -- the Kingdom of God. The beachhead was unfortunately lost to hostile forces, thanks to the failure of the original humans. But defeating malevolent forces, winning back the earth, and having humans reign with Christ over the earth (2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 5:10; 20:6; 22:5) remains God's primary objective and the primary calling of humans.
One of the things I'll be doing out in California is meeting with Ralph Winter and his team to brainstorm about the evolution-as-cosmic-warfare thesis and this new way of reading Genesis. It should be a very interesting time. I'll let you know how it goes.
Right now I've got to go catch a plane!
Blessings on all you co-rulers with Christ!!
Greg
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
More on Evolution as Cosmic Warfare
I spend the weekend hanging out with some of my openness friends attending a Science and Openness Theology Conference in southern California. We all presented essays we've been working on since last summer for a book on Science and Openness Theology. After each presentation other Conference participants offered critical feedback.
As I mentioned in my previous post, my essay was entitled Evolution As Cosmic Warfare. Given the incredible stature of Satan in the N.T., I argued, we have grounds for interpreting the massive carnage and waste found in evolution as largely, if not completely, the work of Satan, not God. (I refer to Satan as a shorthand way of referring to Satan, principalities and powers and demons, since I think all play a role in corrupting nature).
A lot of people loved my argument. Others not so much. A few seemed to loath it (especially those most heavily involved in the natural sciences). One line of criticism went something like this. If the evolution-as-cosmic-warfare thesis is right, then the animal kingdom today is the result of the activity of both God and Satan. So a tiger, for example, reflects both the glory of God as well as the malevolent character of Satan. But it's not clear that this "co-designer" model is coherent. Even if it is coherent, how are we to decide which characteristics should be attributed to God and which to Satan? On top of this, one person argued that for my thesis to be regarded as plausible, it was incumbent upon me to offer a compelling scientific account of how Satan corrupted natural processes to produce things like malevolent parasites and carnivorous predators.
I responded by saying I could see no difficulty in admitting dual spiritual influences in the evolutionary process. Consider the glowing bunny that scientists have created by splicing together the DNA of jellyfish and rabbits: It reflects the creative influence of both God and humans. Since we lack specific information about how God and Satan were involved in the evolutionary process , it may be impossible to trace specific characteristics back to their spiritual source -- assuming there is a spiritual source behind a specific characteristic or set of characteristics (often these may be merely the result of natural processes). If we didn't know that rabbits didn't originally glow, for example, we'd have no way of knowing that the glowing rabbit had been tampered with.
Still, I argued, all other things being equal, to the extent that something in nature reflects the character of "a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour" (1 Pet 5:8) rather than that of the benevolent Creator, we ought to at least entertain the possibility that this is due to the corrupting influence of Satan.
Turning to the final criticism, it's true that I can't give a scientific account of how cosmic warfare produced malevolent parasites, predators and the like. But this is hardly a strike against my thesis since it applies equally to those theists who deny Satan's involvement in nature. For example, defenders of Intelligent Design who accept evolution hold that God's intelligence was involved in the unfolding of evolution, but they cannot give a scientific account of how he was so involved. This is the same boat I'm in, except that I simply add that we have no reason to assume God is the only spirit-agent affecting this process.
The bottom line is that no one can provide a scientific account of how supernatural agents affect the world for the simple reason that the methodology of natural sciences doesn't concern itself with supernatural agents. I rest my case!
Anyway, the entire conference was fun and informative. At the end of the conference I spent a fun afternoon with Ralph Winter and a team of mission-minded folks who work with him. We discussed and debated an assortment of topics, including the openness of the future, the nature of Genesis 1, the problem of evil and the theological foundation of missions. It was invigorating.
On my plane ride out to California I read Eckhart Tolle's new book A New Earth that has been heavily promoted by Oprah Winfrey and is causing an uproar among many Christians. I'm going to suspend our Old Testament and Violence discussion one more post to report on this book in a day or two.
til then,
B-BLESSED!
As I mentioned in my previous post, my essay was entitled Evolution As Cosmic Warfare. Given the incredible stature of Satan in the N.T., I argued, we have grounds for interpreting the massive carnage and waste found in evolution as largely, if not completely, the work of Satan, not God. (I refer to Satan as a shorthand way of referring to Satan, principalities and powers and demons, since I think all play a role in corrupting nature).
A lot of people loved my argument. Others not so much. A few seemed to loath it (especially those most heavily involved in the natural sciences). One line of criticism went something like this. If the evolution-as-cosmic-warfare thesis is right, then the animal kingdom today is the result of the activity of both God and Satan. So a tiger, for example, reflects both the glory of God as well as the malevolent character of Satan. But it's not clear that this "co-designer" model is coherent. Even if it is coherent, how are we to decide which characteristics should be attributed to God and which to Satan? On top of this, one person argued that for my thesis to be regarded as plausible, it was incumbent upon me to offer a compelling scientific account of how Satan corrupted natural processes to produce things like malevolent parasites and carnivorous predators.
I responded by saying I could see no difficulty in admitting dual spiritual influences in the evolutionary process. Consider the glowing bunny that scientists have created by splicing together the DNA of jellyfish and rabbits: It reflects the creative influence of both God and humans. Since we lack specific information about how God and Satan were involved in the evolutionary process , it may be impossible to trace specific characteristics back to their spiritual source -- assuming there is a spiritual source behind a specific characteristic or set of characteristics (often these may be merely the result of natural processes). If we didn't know that rabbits didn't originally glow, for example, we'd have no way of knowing that the glowing rabbit had been tampered with.
Still, I argued, all other things being equal, to the extent that something in nature reflects the character of "a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour" (1 Pet 5:8) rather than that of the benevolent Creator, we ought to at least entertain the possibility that this is due to the corrupting influence of Satan.
Turning to the final criticism, it's true that I can't give a scientific account of how cosmic warfare produced malevolent parasites, predators and the like. But this is hardly a strike against my thesis since it applies equally to those theists who deny Satan's involvement in nature. For example, defenders of Intelligent Design who accept evolution hold that God's intelligence was involved in the unfolding of evolution, but they cannot give a scientific account of how he was so involved. This is the same boat I'm in, except that I simply add that we have no reason to assume God is the only spirit-agent affecting this process.
The bottom line is that no one can provide a scientific account of how supernatural agents affect the world for the simple reason that the methodology of natural sciences doesn't concern itself with supernatural agents. I rest my case!
Anyway, the entire conference was fun and informative. At the end of the conference I spent a fun afternoon with Ralph Winter and a team of mission-minded folks who work with him. We discussed and debated an assortment of topics, including the openness of the future, the nature of Genesis 1, the problem of evil and the theological foundation of missions. It was invigorating.
On my plane ride out to California I read Eckhart Tolle's new book A New Earth that has been heavily promoted by Oprah Winfrey and is causing an uproar among many Christians. I'm going to suspend our Old Testament and Violence discussion one more post to report on this book in a day or two.
til then,
B-BLESSED!
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Back to the Drawing Board on the "Gap Theory"
Heh folks,
I've heard from quite a number of you, and I'm delighted you're enjoying my daily posts on the Science and Theology Conference out here in Quincy. (I also know its not everyone's cup of tea, so to you non-scientific folks I say, "Thanks for your patience"!)
On Thursday we dialogued with Dr. Ken Miller, professor of cell biology at Brown University. As with our previous guests, he was an incredibly informative and engaging speaker. Ken is a very quick thinker, an avid evolutionist, a passionate opponent of Intelligent Design being taught in public schools, and a very committed Roman Catholic. He's well known for his acclaimed book, Finding Darwin's God, but he's even better known for having written a widely used high school biology textbook that has been at the center of several controversies surrounding the teaching of Evolution and Intelligent Design in public schools, the most recent being the controversy in Dover, Pennsylvania, that got national attention.
Most of Miller's lecture was spent giving "the inside scoop" on his various battles with "the Intelligent Design" (I. D.) and "Young Earth Creationist" crowd. This wasn't quite on target for the topic of our conference, but it was nevertheless very informative and more than a little entertaining. Miller was a central player at the Dover's trial, and some of what went on during this trial was hilarious, at least as Miller tells it. As you probably know, the I.D. crowd was voted down by the Judge. Miller says that there are currently TWO movies in the making about this event. (I wonder if they'll include Pat Robertson's cryptic and omnious warning of disaster coming to Dover because of this decision against I.D being taught in the public schools.).
ANYWAY, in the course of describing these controversies, and especially in the discussion after his lecture, Miller provided us with a number of arguments as to a) why Intelligent Design is a religious, not a scientific theory; b) some of the more impressive recent findings that support the theory of evolution [most of which I hadn't known before]; and c) why evolution should pose no threat to religious faith. None of the participants in the conference (including myself) had any problems with "b" or "c," but a few expressed reservations about "a." One very sharp participant argued that Miller's depiction of some of the I.D. defenders and some of their arguments at the Dover's trial was quite biased -- but I'm frankly not informed enough on either side to comment on this.
The discussion also delved into the nature of scientific explanations verses religious claims, and I felt this was for the most part a helpful dialogue. Among other things Miller stressed that the claim that science must stick with a "naturalistic methodology" isn't an arrogant claim that all of reality can be understood naturalistically (as some philosophers of science seem to think -- see several blogs from last week). Rather, it’s a claim toward modesty. It is saying, "this is all we are competent to speak on." To qualify as science, he argued, a claim must in principle be TESTABLE by empirical means. If it's not empirically testable, it still may be TRUE--i'ts just that it can't be proven scientifically.
This is an important point, because Miller's battle isn't against people who believe the world was designed by a Creator. He himself believes this. His beef is with those who want to allow appealing to a supernatural source to qualify as science (and taught in public classrooms as such), for this is simply not a testable hypothesis. All the arguments used to support this contention at best only show that evolutionary theory is yet incomplete. They don't "prove" Intelligent Design. Also, Miller gave many examples where science at points was at a loss as to how to explain certain phenomena, but how when they "stuck to their guns" and insisted there must be a natural explanation -- against others who wanted to appeal to a supernatural source -- it proved fruitful to subsequent scientific discoveries.
I myself wasn't versed enough in Intelligent Design to enter this discussion (I've read a total of two books on the subject!), but several participants at the conference pushed back a bit on this. It was a good dialogue.
As it concerns my own theology, there's only one point that is possibily affected by any of the discussion this morning.. (Actually, its not really affected by any of this discussion, but the thought arose during the discussion).
To date I have argued that we have good grounds for maintaining that fallen powers were at work in the world before humans ever came on the scene, since (as I mentioned a few blogs ago) the paleontological evidence shows clearly that there were millions of years of carnage before humans were created. Odd as this belief seems to some, I'm personally convinced this view is true.
Now, in God at War and Satan and the Problem of Evil I have appealed to the "gap theory" of creation as a way of reconciling this conviction with Genesis chapter 1. (My version of the "gap theory" posits a gap between verses 1 and 2 and says nature became corrupted by demonic powers and the world and the powers were judged during this interval). Among other arguments, I have contended that there are more than a dozen references to creation in the Old Testament, and every one but Genesis 1 involves "warfare" (chaoskampf -- meaning "conflict with chaos"), in so far as these passages depict Yahweh rebuking hostile waters or cosmic monsters to bring creation about. The imagery is of course mythic, but like all true myth, it must refer to a reality, and so it must be integrated with Genesis 1. So I have proposed (however tentatively) that we put this cosmic conflict between verses 1 and 2 in the first chapter of Genesis. (We have to put the creation of the angels in Genesis 1 somewhere, since they're not mentioned, so why not the fall of the angels and their corruption of the earth in this space as well? Plus, I find evidence in Genesis itself that warrants this insertion...read God at War!)
At the same time, I've left open the issue of how literal or figurative the rest of Genesis 1 should be taken, and thus left open the issue of how to fit evolution into this chapter after verse 2. (I grant that it occurred before the arrival of humans, though I'm not convinced that current evolutionary theory is adequate to explain how).
Well, as Ken Miller was presenting his case, I had to face a problem that I've known about for a long time, but have to date been conveniently ignoring. Namely, there's simply not much scientific evidence for the "gap" I'm proposing. If there was in fact a cataclysmic judgment on the earth and then a re-creation, as I've proposed we find in Genesis 1, one would think there should be some evidence of it. In fact, one would expect to find MASSIVE evidence for it. Now, one can certainly find a number of major cataclysims in earth's violent history, but nothing that would come close to suggesting what the gap theory requires.
So, folks, I seem to have a problem, and I need to face it.
The advantages of my version of the gap theory are that it solves an exegetical problem (viz. reconciling Genesis 1 with the dozen or so other creation accounts that involve conflict); it accounts for an old earth; and it accounts for the carnage that existed before humans ever came around. But I have to confess it runs into a significant problem with the geological and palentological record. It also runs into problems with the genetic record, since the vast majority of scientists are now convinced there is a rather seamless ancestry that can be genetically traced from the lower primates up to humans. (Miller gave some of this evidence, and it was very impressive).
When established science and one's theology come into conflict, it simply means we have more work to do.
And so, folks, its back to the drawing board for me on the gap theory.
Keep growing, thinking and loving!
Greg
Ps. I know my concession in this post is going to disappoint some, since I've received numerous mailings from people who LOVE my version of the gap theory as a way of reconciling Genesis 1 with an old earth and violent pre-huminoid history. I'm sorry, but what can one do? I'm convinced there's a plausible way to handle all the biblical and scientific evidence, and I even have a HUNCH as to how this might be done. But I need to work on it. I encourage you to do the same.
I've heard from quite a number of you, and I'm delighted you're enjoying my daily posts on the Science and Theology Conference out here in Quincy. (I also know its not everyone's cup of tea, so to you non-scientific folks I say, "Thanks for your patience"!)
On Thursday we dialogued with Dr. Ken Miller, professor of cell biology at Brown University. As with our previous guests, he was an incredibly informative and engaging speaker. Ken is a very quick thinker, an avid evolutionist, a passionate opponent of Intelligent Design being taught in public schools, and a very committed Roman Catholic. He's well known for his acclaimed book, Finding Darwin's God, but he's even better known for having written a widely used high school biology textbook that has been at the center of several controversies surrounding the teaching of Evolution and Intelligent Design in public schools, the most recent being the controversy in Dover, Pennsylvania, that got national attention.
Most of Miller's lecture was spent giving "the inside scoop" on his various battles with "the Intelligent Design" (I. D.) and "Young Earth Creationist" crowd. This wasn't quite on target for the topic of our conference, but it was nevertheless very informative and more than a little entertaining. Miller was a central player at the Dover's trial, and some of what went on during this trial was hilarious, at least as Miller tells it. As you probably know, the I.D. crowd was voted down by the Judge. Miller says that there are currently TWO movies in the making about this event. (I wonder if they'll include Pat Robertson's cryptic and omnious warning of disaster coming to Dover because of this decision against I.D being taught in the public schools.).
ANYWAY, in the course of describing these controversies, and especially in the discussion after his lecture, Miller provided us with a number of arguments as to a) why Intelligent Design is a religious, not a scientific theory; b) some of the more impressive recent findings that support the theory of evolution [most of which I hadn't known before]; and c) why evolution should pose no threat to religious faith. None of the participants in the conference (including myself) had any problems with "b" or "c," but a few expressed reservations about "a." One very sharp participant argued that Miller's depiction of some of the I.D. defenders and some of their arguments at the Dover's trial was quite biased -- but I'm frankly not informed enough on either side to comment on this.
The discussion also delved into the nature of scientific explanations verses religious claims, and I felt this was for the most part a helpful dialogue. Among other things Miller stressed that the claim that science must stick with a "naturalistic methodology" isn't an arrogant claim that all of reality can be understood naturalistically (as some philosophers of science seem to think -- see several blogs from last week). Rather, it’s a claim toward modesty. It is saying, "this is all we are competent to speak on." To qualify as science, he argued, a claim must in principle be TESTABLE by empirical means. If it's not empirically testable, it still may be TRUE--i'ts just that it can't be proven scientifically.
This is an important point, because Miller's battle isn't against people who believe the world was designed by a Creator. He himself believes this. His beef is with those who want to allow appealing to a supernatural source to qualify as science (and taught in public classrooms as such), for this is simply not a testable hypothesis. All the arguments used to support this contention at best only show that evolutionary theory is yet incomplete. They don't "prove" Intelligent Design. Also, Miller gave many examples where science at points was at a loss as to how to explain certain phenomena, but how when they "stuck to their guns" and insisted there must be a natural explanation -- against others who wanted to appeal to a supernatural source -- it proved fruitful to subsequent scientific discoveries.
I myself wasn't versed enough in Intelligent Design to enter this discussion (I've read a total of two books on the subject!), but several participants at the conference pushed back a bit on this. It was a good dialogue.
As it concerns my own theology, there's only one point that is possibily affected by any of the discussion this morning.. (Actually, its not really affected by any of this discussion, but the thought arose during the discussion).
To date I have argued that we have good grounds for maintaining that fallen powers were at work in the world before humans ever came on the scene, since (as I mentioned a few blogs ago) the paleontological evidence shows clearly that there were millions of years of carnage before humans were created. Odd as this belief seems to some, I'm personally convinced this view is true.
Now, in God at War and Satan and the Problem of Evil I have appealed to the "gap theory" of creation as a way of reconciling this conviction with Genesis chapter 1. (My version of the "gap theory" posits a gap between verses 1 and 2 and says nature became corrupted by demonic powers and the world and the powers were judged during this interval). Among other arguments, I have contended that there are more than a dozen references to creation in the Old Testament, and every one but Genesis 1 involves "warfare" (chaoskampf -- meaning "conflict with chaos"), in so far as these passages depict Yahweh rebuking hostile waters or cosmic monsters to bring creation about. The imagery is of course mythic, but like all true myth, it must refer to a reality, and so it must be integrated with Genesis 1. So I have proposed (however tentatively) that we put this cosmic conflict between verses 1 and 2 in the first chapter of Genesis. (We have to put the creation of the angels in Genesis 1 somewhere, since they're not mentioned, so why not the fall of the angels and their corruption of the earth in this space as well? Plus, I find evidence in Genesis itself that warrants this insertion...read God at War!)
At the same time, I've left open the issue of how literal or figurative the rest of Genesis 1 should be taken, and thus left open the issue of how to fit evolution into this chapter after verse 2. (I grant that it occurred before the arrival of humans, though I'm not convinced that current evolutionary theory is adequate to explain how).
Well, as Ken Miller was presenting his case, I had to face a problem that I've known about for a long time, but have to date been conveniently ignoring. Namely, there's simply not much scientific evidence for the "gap" I'm proposing. If there was in fact a cataclysmic judgment on the earth and then a re-creation, as I've proposed we find in Genesis 1, one would think there should be some evidence of it. In fact, one would expect to find MASSIVE evidence for it. Now, one can certainly find a number of major cataclysims in earth's violent history, but nothing that would come close to suggesting what the gap theory requires.
So, folks, I seem to have a problem, and I need to face it.
The advantages of my version of the gap theory are that it solves an exegetical problem (viz. reconciling Genesis 1 with the dozen or so other creation accounts that involve conflict); it accounts for an old earth; and it accounts for the carnage that existed before humans ever came around. But I have to confess it runs into a significant problem with the geological and palentological record. It also runs into problems with the genetic record, since the vast majority of scientists are now convinced there is a rather seamless ancestry that can be genetically traced from the lower primates up to humans. (Miller gave some of this evidence, and it was very impressive).
When established science and one's theology come into conflict, it simply means we have more work to do.
And so, folks, its back to the drawing board for me on the gap theory.
Keep growing, thinking and loving!
Greg
Ps. I know my concession in this post is going to disappoint some, since I've received numerous mailings from people who LOVE my version of the gap theory as a way of reconciling Genesis 1 with an old earth and violent pre-huminoid history. I'm sorry, but what can one do? I'm convinced there's a plausible way to handle all the biblical and scientific evidence, and I even have a HUNCH as to how this might be done. But I need to work on it. I encourage you to do the same.
Historical Fall, Historical Redemption
Hello my Blogging Buds,
I'm still out here in Quincy. I'm missing my adorable wife and family terribly. I'm missing my friends. I'm missing my dogs. But, as compensation, I'm enjoying great intellectual stimulation. Life is full of trade-offs I guess.
In our tenth (yes, it's been TEN already!) session of the Quincy Science and Theology conference, we heard from Dr. John Haught, professor of theology at Georgetown University and author of God After Darwin: An Evolutionary Theology. Among other things, John has been at the cutting edge of attempts to fully integrate a biblical and (more-or-less) traditional Christian theology into the post-Darwinian worldview. It was, once again, a stimulating session. Here are a few of the highlights:
1. John did a great job graphically fleshing out the enormous worldview shift that has occurred in post-Darwinian western thought. Consider, for example, that prior to Darwin most people assumed the earth was about six to ten thousand years old and that humans have been on the scene from the start. Now, after Darwin, the situation is something like this: Imagine a stack of 30 books, each 450 pages long. For the first 21 volumes there is NO LIFE. The simplest living cells come on the scene toward the end of volume 22. The Cambrian Explosion occurs in volume 29. Dinosaurs occupy about seven pages beginning around page 380 of volume 30. Humans come on the scene at the bottom 10th of the LAST PAGE of the LAST VOLUME. THAT, folks, is a huge change of perspective! Theology needs to wrestle with it.
I know some folks think this is inherently an anti-god perspective. (I received an e-mail yesterday from one person who questioned my salvation for giving any credibility to evolution in my previous couple of posts!) But I (along with John Haught and all the participants in the conference) don't see why this should be the case. For a God who has always existed, the difference between 10,000 years and 13.7 billion years (the age most scientists give the universe today) is infintesimally small. I personally feel the older universe and long process God used to create humans adds grandeur to our picture of God.
2. We discussed the nature of "layered explanations." For example, suppose there's a pot of boiling water on the stove and someone asks, "Why is the water boiling?" One could respond: 1) by explaining to the person how heat pushes water molecules into an excited state we call boiling; 2) by telling the person, "I turned on the stove"; or 3) by telling the person "I wanted tea." These are not incompatible explanations. So too, Haught argued, saying "God did it" while explaining a natural proces by which (say) a species came about are not mutually exclusive explanations. The Bible and science (yes, even evolutionary science) are not in conflict (unless, of course, one insists on interpreting Genesis in a very literal way). Atheistic evolutionists like Richard Dawkins err in assuming that explanations #2 and #3 can be reduced to explanation #1.
3. John and the rest of us talked a good bit about the open-ended nature of creation and how it manifests a God who delights in creativity and adventure. God gives the creation its own "integrity," John argued, such that it participates in the creation process. God's creativity is channelled through natural processes where nature explores possibilities, sometimes coming to dead ends, sometimes finding ways to evolve into more complex, efficient, and intelligent forms. Dr. Haught also strongly emphasized the role of "promise" in the Bible. God's word, he argued, always involves "promise." He applied this to the creational process, arguing that the creation is brought about not as a finished product, or as a deterministic mechanism, but as an adventurous narrative that is moving towards a promised future. I think this is a view that is not only compatible with science and the Bible; it's also inherently beautiful and intuitively compelling.
4. We once again got into the ruthless nature of the evolutionary process. Haught graphically illustrated the issue with the life cycle of the sheep liver fluke. As I understand it, this nasty parasite gets inside of snails and eats them from the inside out, knowing precisely what NOT to eat to keep the snail alive until it's done using it as a host. I''ve heard of other parasites that possess this same "wisdom." I read about one (I forget its name) that eats grasshoppers from the inside out to the point where there's only vital organs and a head left! The parasite then makes the grasshopper go mad, causing it to dive into water and drown itself. This allows the parasite to leave its host and reproduce in water -- only to have its young find their way into other grasshoppers who drink the water! YIK. Why does nature produces critters like this?
Haught seemed content to attribute the "carnage" aspect of evolution to natural by-products of the evolutionary process. While I didn't make a big stink of it in this session (I don't want to come across as a "one-issue person" here), I find this explanation entirely inadequate. I grant that God gives nature its own integrity, such that there's an element of freedom and adventure in nature itself. But I don't see how this explains the production of "natural" complex agents like malicious parasites and viruses who inflict misery on sentient creatures for their entire existence. Since I have other reasons for believing that malicious cosmic agents exist, I see no reason not to attribute the aspects of nature that don't reflect the Creator's benevolent character to these agents. In this view, the creational process is itself a battle ground between good and evil -- which, it seems to me, is precisely how the creational process looks.
5. I'll end with a reflection on the aspect of Haught's view that deeply concerns me. Like many other theologians who center their theological reflections on the evolutionary process, Haught simply has no place for a historical "fall." In his view, there never was a primordial paradise or a primordial rebellion (Genesis 3). What we call our "fallen nature" is for these theologians simply our inherited animal instincts that we need to tame and transcend with our higher, ever-evolving, spiritual capacities. This is already troubling, but what makes it worse is that if there's no historical "fall," it's not clear how there could be a historical "redemption." Jesus isn't rescuing us from sin and the devil. He's simply helping us evolve, or something of the sort.
This, obviously, constitutes a signfiicant revisioning of biblical thinking about Christ, and because of my commitment to biblical inspiration, I'm not willing to go there. Jesus and the whole New Testament clearly affirms a historical fall (e.g. Rom. 5), and since I have very good grounds for thinking Jesus is the Son of God, I have very good reasons for thinking he's right about such matters. Nor do I see any good philosophical or scientific reasons to deny a historical fall or historical redemption. Indeed, it seems to me almost self-evident that there's something profoundly wrong with human nature and society -- as well as the "natural world" -- as we presently experience it.
As I put all this together, I'm led to the belief that there was some sort of rebellion in the primordial past, first among angelic beings, then with humans. The first resulted in nature becoming to some degree corrupt while the second (which is simply our being co-opted into the first rebellion) resulted in human beings becoming corrupt and loosing the authority over nature we were supposed to have.
Jesus came to restore both humans and the cosmos (Rom 8:18-25; Col 1:15-23). And he does it by freeing both humans and the cosmos from the oppression of the demonic powers and the sin that so enslaves us.
Blessings on you all,
Greg
I'm still out here in Quincy. I'm missing my adorable wife and family terribly. I'm missing my friends. I'm missing my dogs. But, as compensation, I'm enjoying great intellectual stimulation. Life is full of trade-offs I guess.
In our tenth (yes, it's been TEN already!) session of the Quincy Science and Theology conference, we heard from Dr. John Haught, professor of theology at Georgetown University and author of God After Darwin: An Evolutionary Theology. Among other things, John has been at the cutting edge of attempts to fully integrate a biblical and (more-or-less) traditional Christian theology into the post-Darwinian worldview. It was, once again, a stimulating session. Here are a few of the highlights:
1. John did a great job graphically fleshing out the enormous worldview shift that has occurred in post-Darwinian western thought. Consider, for example, that prior to Darwin most people assumed the earth was about six to ten thousand years old and that humans have been on the scene from the start. Now, after Darwin, the situation is something like this: Imagine a stack of 30 books, each 450 pages long. For the first 21 volumes there is NO LIFE. The simplest living cells come on the scene toward the end of volume 22. The Cambrian Explosion occurs in volume 29. Dinosaurs occupy about seven pages beginning around page 380 of volume 30. Humans come on the scene at the bottom 10th of the LAST PAGE of the LAST VOLUME. THAT, folks, is a huge change of perspective! Theology needs to wrestle with it.
I know some folks think this is inherently an anti-god perspective. (I received an e-mail yesterday from one person who questioned my salvation for giving any credibility to evolution in my previous couple of posts!) But I (along with John Haught and all the participants in the conference) don't see why this should be the case. For a God who has always existed, the difference between 10,000 years and 13.7 billion years (the age most scientists give the universe today) is infintesimally small. I personally feel the older universe and long process God used to create humans adds grandeur to our picture of God.
2. We discussed the nature of "layered explanations." For example, suppose there's a pot of boiling water on the stove and someone asks, "Why is the water boiling?" One could respond: 1) by explaining to the person how heat pushes water molecules into an excited state we call boiling; 2) by telling the person, "I turned on the stove"; or 3) by telling the person "I wanted tea." These are not incompatible explanations. So too, Haught argued, saying "God did it" while explaining a natural proces by which (say) a species came about are not mutually exclusive explanations. The Bible and science (yes, even evolutionary science) are not in conflict (unless, of course, one insists on interpreting Genesis in a very literal way). Atheistic evolutionists like Richard Dawkins err in assuming that explanations #2 and #3 can be reduced to explanation #1.
3. John and the rest of us talked a good bit about the open-ended nature of creation and how it manifests a God who delights in creativity and adventure. God gives the creation its own "integrity," John argued, such that it participates in the creation process. God's creativity is channelled through natural processes where nature explores possibilities, sometimes coming to dead ends, sometimes finding ways to evolve into more complex, efficient, and intelligent forms. Dr. Haught also strongly emphasized the role of "promise" in the Bible. God's word, he argued, always involves "promise." He applied this to the creational process, arguing that the creation is brought about not as a finished product, or as a deterministic mechanism, but as an adventurous narrative that is moving towards a promised future. I think this is a view that is not only compatible with science and the Bible; it's also inherently beautiful and intuitively compelling.
4. We once again got into the ruthless nature of the evolutionary process. Haught graphically illustrated the issue with the life cycle of the sheep liver fluke. As I understand it, this nasty parasite gets inside of snails and eats them from the inside out, knowing precisely what NOT to eat to keep the snail alive until it's done using it as a host. I''ve heard of other parasites that possess this same "wisdom." I read about one (I forget its name) that eats grasshoppers from the inside out to the point where there's only vital organs and a head left! The parasite then makes the grasshopper go mad, causing it to dive into water and drown itself. This allows the parasite to leave its host and reproduce in water -- only to have its young find their way into other grasshoppers who drink the water! YIK. Why does nature produces critters like this?
Haught seemed content to attribute the "carnage" aspect of evolution to natural by-products of the evolutionary process. While I didn't make a big stink of it in this session (I don't want to come across as a "one-issue person" here), I find this explanation entirely inadequate. I grant that God gives nature its own integrity, such that there's an element of freedom and adventure in nature itself. But I don't see how this explains the production of "natural" complex agents like malicious parasites and viruses who inflict misery on sentient creatures for their entire existence. Since I have other reasons for believing that malicious cosmic agents exist, I see no reason not to attribute the aspects of nature that don't reflect the Creator's benevolent character to these agents. In this view, the creational process is itself a battle ground between good and evil -- which, it seems to me, is precisely how the creational process looks.
5. I'll end with a reflection on the aspect of Haught's view that deeply concerns me. Like many other theologians who center their theological reflections on the evolutionary process, Haught simply has no place for a historical "fall." In his view, there never was a primordial paradise or a primordial rebellion (Genesis 3). What we call our "fallen nature" is for these theologians simply our inherited animal instincts that we need to tame and transcend with our higher, ever-evolving, spiritual capacities. This is already troubling, but what makes it worse is that if there's no historical "fall," it's not clear how there could be a historical "redemption." Jesus isn't rescuing us from sin and the devil. He's simply helping us evolve, or something of the sort.
This, obviously, constitutes a signfiicant revisioning of biblical thinking about Christ, and because of my commitment to biblical inspiration, I'm not willing to go there. Jesus and the whole New Testament clearly affirms a historical fall (e.g. Rom. 5), and since I have very good grounds for thinking Jesus is the Son of God, I have very good reasons for thinking he's right about such matters. Nor do I see any good philosophical or scientific reasons to deny a historical fall or historical redemption. Indeed, it seems to me almost self-evident that there's something profoundly wrong with human nature and society -- as well as the "natural world" -- as we presently experience it.
As I put all this together, I'm led to the belief that there was some sort of rebellion in the primordial past, first among angelic beings, then with humans. The first resulted in nature becoming to some degree corrupt while the second (which is simply our being co-opted into the first rebellion) resulted in human beings becoming corrupt and loosing the authority over nature we were supposed to have.
Jesus came to restore both humans and the cosmos (Rom 8:18-25; Col 1:15-23). And he does it by freeing both humans and the cosmos from the oppression of the demonic powers and the sin that so enslaves us.
Blessings on you all,
Greg
Friday, June 22, 2007
Reflections on the Science Conference
Hello bloggers and bloggets,
Well, I'm having a great time out here in Quincy. The discussions with fellow theologians, philosophers, and scientists who are Open Theists is very stimulating. Plus we're having a lot of fun. At the same time, I'm missing my wife, family, friends, and dogs terribly, so I'm looking forward to coming home for the weekend.
In today's session we had a fine discussion with another leader in the field of the dialogue between science and theology, Dr. Howard Van Til. For years he taught Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College, but then got into a good bit of trouble for teaching naturalistic evolution and he ended up retiring early in 1997 (I believe). He was a delightful, humble, very honest, and extremely irenic person. We discussed a wide range of issues, only one of which I can mention right now.
As we did the previous day, we discussed a great deal about whether science must be committed to naturalistic explanations and, if so, what implications this has for our understanding of the relationship between science and theology. I (and several others) argued that the issue really isn't whether science should or should not be committed to naturalistic explanations. I think it obviously should be. The issue is whether science needs to regard its naturalistic explanations as COMPREHENSIVE OF ALL REALITY.
If a miracle occurs, or seems to have occurred, I argued, I have no problem with scientists looking for a natural explanation. This is simply what they're paid to do. In fact, I have no problem with the scientist sometimes FINDING a natural explanation for an alleged mircle. I'm sure many times people claim to have experienced a "miracle" when in fact they've only experienced something a-typical, and there's a perfectly good natural explanation for why this a-typical event occurred.
What I have problems with is when some scientists claim that the whole enterprise of science hangs on the belief that all occurences MUST have a natural explanation -- that is, that nothing supernatural ever happens or ever can happen. In other words, they think naturalistic explanations are comprehensive of all reality. If someone thinks THIS belief lies at the core of the scientific enterprise, then, so far as I can see, there's no possible way Christian theology can be integrated with [their version of] the scientific enterprise.
But there's absolutely no reason for scientists to claim this. And there's absolutely no warrant for scientists to claim this. And many respected scientists don't in fact claim this. Yet, like Philp Clayton before him, this seems to be what Howard Van Til was (humbly and tentatively) claiming.
Look, the belief in God as a transcendent personal being IS a belief in the SUPERnatural. To try to integrate this belief into a framework where the supernatural is carte blanch dismissed is simply to try to integrate a belief in God with atheism. It's a contradiction. It doesn't work. End of story.
Fortunately, the scientific community as a whole is (so far as I can see) moving toward a more humble position. The more we learn about the world, the more we discover mystery. And this, I'm happy to say, leaves plenty of room for theology and science to talk to each other and learn from each other.
Gotta run.
I'll keep you posted.
Well, I'm having a great time out here in Quincy. The discussions with fellow theologians, philosophers, and scientists who are Open Theists is very stimulating. Plus we're having a lot of fun. At the same time, I'm missing my wife, family, friends, and dogs terribly, so I'm looking forward to coming home for the weekend.
In today's session we had a fine discussion with another leader in the field of the dialogue between science and theology, Dr. Howard Van Til. For years he taught Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College, but then got into a good bit of trouble for teaching naturalistic evolution and he ended up retiring early in 1997 (I believe). He was a delightful, humble, very honest, and extremely irenic person. We discussed a wide range of issues, only one of which I can mention right now.
As we did the previous day, we discussed a great deal about whether science must be committed to naturalistic explanations and, if so, what implications this has for our understanding of the relationship between science and theology. I (and several others) argued that the issue really isn't whether science should or should not be committed to naturalistic explanations. I think it obviously should be. The issue is whether science needs to regard its naturalistic explanations as COMPREHENSIVE OF ALL REALITY.
If a miracle occurs, or seems to have occurred, I argued, I have no problem with scientists looking for a natural explanation. This is simply what they're paid to do. In fact, I have no problem with the scientist sometimes FINDING a natural explanation for an alleged mircle. I'm sure many times people claim to have experienced a "miracle" when in fact they've only experienced something a-typical, and there's a perfectly good natural explanation for why this a-typical event occurred.
What I have problems with is when some scientists claim that the whole enterprise of science hangs on the belief that all occurences MUST have a natural explanation -- that is, that nothing supernatural ever happens or ever can happen. In other words, they think naturalistic explanations are comprehensive of all reality. If someone thinks THIS belief lies at the core of the scientific enterprise, then, so far as I can see, there's no possible way Christian theology can be integrated with [their version of] the scientific enterprise.
But there's absolutely no reason for scientists to claim this. And there's absolutely no warrant for scientists to claim this. And many respected scientists don't in fact claim this. Yet, like Philp Clayton before him, this seems to be what Howard Van Til was (humbly and tentatively) claiming.
Look, the belief in God as a transcendent personal being IS a belief in the SUPERnatural. To try to integrate this belief into a framework where the supernatural is carte blanch dismissed is simply to try to integrate a belief in God with atheism. It's a contradiction. It doesn't work. End of story.
Fortunately, the scientific community as a whole is (so far as I can see) moving toward a more humble position. The more we learn about the world, the more we discover mystery. And this, I'm happy to say, leaves plenty of room for theology and science to talk to each other and learn from each other.
Gotta run.
I'll keep you posted.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Intelligent Design and Intelligent Anti-Design
I flew back home this weekend to preach a couple sermons, then flew out to re-join the science and theology conference in Quincy -- and I am frankly sick of FLYING!! But, at the same time, it was wonderful seeing my adorable wife and son again, as well as my friends and my dogs. And, of course, I'm always blessed to worship and crack open the Word at Woodland Hills Church. So the trip was well worth the trouble.
Anyway, yesterday all of us theologians and philosophers had an excellent discussion with Dr. Ross Stein, Professor of Chemistry at Harvard Medical School. He's a very interesting bird. He was a hard core atheist up until about 5 years ago when the apparent inexplicability of abiogensis (the origin of life) and magnificent complexity of even the simplest life forms convinced him there had to be intelligence directing the evolutionary process. At the same time, the existence of complex forms of life that serve only to harm humanity (such as the AIDS virus) convinced him that God can't be omnipotent. In fact, Stein confessed it was the existence of natural evil that kept him from believing in God in the first place. So, Dr. Stein embraced a form of theism known as Process Theism.
Process Theism says that God is forever evolving along with the world. God didn't create the world ex nihilo, and so never exercises unilateral control over the world. But God INFLUENCES the world, moment-by-moment, steering it as best he can toward ever-increasing complex forms of life and higher forms of consciousness.
At the same time, the world is composed of "units of experience" (called "actual occasions" in Process thought) that have some minimal degree of decision making power. Everything -- literally, EVERY DISTINCT THING from people down to electrons -- is at its core an experiential center. (This is called "panpsychism" or "pan-experientialism," and I blogged about it several posts ago). So God can't ensure that every actual occasion will fully cooperate with his good plans. In Stein's Process view, evil arises from the unfortunate decisions of actual occasions.
Stein then proceeded, in great (and always interesting) detail, to use Process Thought to explain abiogensis and the evolution of increasingly complex chemical processes that produce "emergent properties." (If you don't know what this means, don't worry about it).
Now, as I argued in my book Trinity and Process, I find a lot that is valuable in Process thought. But, as I also argued in this work, I also find much that is theologically and philosophical problematic. Among other things, the God of the Bible is depicted as an omnipotent Creator. He does miracles throughout biblical history (and yet today) and became Incarnate in Jesus Christ -- things Process thought simply cannot allow for. But the objection I had today concerned its explanation of the problem of evil.
Here's the gist of my argument: Stein appeals to God's intelligent creativity to account for the origin of life and the ever increasingly complexity of living organisms. Creation reflects Intelligent Design. I agree. But when it comes to accounting for natural evil, Stein and Process thinkers in general appeal to nothing more than the micro-scopic random decisions of actual occasions.
The trouble is, natural evil is as complex as natural goodness. A virus with the capacity to quickly mutate in ingenious ways as it works its way into the human system with the purpose of harming and destroying is INCREDIBLY COMPLEX. So, if good complexity is evidence of a benevolent intelligence, why shouldn't we conclude that destructive complexity is evidence of an EVIL INTELLIGENCE? (I know this is simplistic in as much as some viruses and bacteria have over-all beneficial results. Fine. But you'd be hard pressed to see the positive results of things like the AIDS or INFLUENZA viruses.)
The Bible ascribes incredible (though not omnipotent) power to Satan and his legions. Satan is "the god of this age" and the "principality and power of the air" who is "in control of the world" (2 Cor. 4:4;Eph 2:2; I Jn 5:19). This is why I'm a bit puzzled by the fact that, when it comes to explaining evil, hardly any theologians seem willing to give Satan any "credit" for natural evil. But given the Bible's witness, together with its testimony that some "natural processes" like DEATH are described as being due to Satan (Heb 2:14), and given the difficulty of accounting for natural evil any other way, I submit we are justified in concluding that God isn't the only intelligence at work in steering natural processes (including the evolutionary process, if you believe in that). Satan is also involved.
I think the main reason for the strange hesitancy of contemporary theologians to ascribe anything to Satan is that most are embarrassed by the concept of an evil cosmic being influencing the world. But why is believing in an evil cosmic being any more difficult than believing in a good cosmic being? Personally, because of the problem of evil, I'd have trouble believing in the latter if I DIDN'T believe in the former.
If you accept my Satan-in-nature theory, there's no longer any problem trying to explain why a good intelligent designer would design the AIDS virus or any other complex destructive organism. Natural process, as much as human beings, are under the influence of not only a good intelligent designer, but also of an evil intelligent anti-designer.
And folks, WE are called to align ourselves with the former, against the latter.
Blessings
Anyway, yesterday all of us theologians and philosophers had an excellent discussion with Dr. Ross Stein, Professor of Chemistry at Harvard Medical School. He's a very interesting bird. He was a hard core atheist up until about 5 years ago when the apparent inexplicability of abiogensis (the origin of life) and magnificent complexity of even the simplest life forms convinced him there had to be intelligence directing the evolutionary process. At the same time, the existence of complex forms of life that serve only to harm humanity (such as the AIDS virus) convinced him that God can't be omnipotent. In fact, Stein confessed it was the existence of natural evil that kept him from believing in God in the first place. So, Dr. Stein embraced a form of theism known as Process Theism.
Process Theism says that God is forever evolving along with the world. God didn't create the world ex nihilo, and so never exercises unilateral control over the world. But God INFLUENCES the world, moment-by-moment, steering it as best he can toward ever-increasing complex forms of life and higher forms of consciousness.
At the same time, the world is composed of "units of experience" (called "actual occasions" in Process thought) that have some minimal degree of decision making power. Everything -- literally, EVERY DISTINCT THING from people down to electrons -- is at its core an experiential center. (This is called "panpsychism" or "pan-experientialism," and I blogged about it several posts ago). So God can't ensure that every actual occasion will fully cooperate with his good plans. In Stein's Process view, evil arises from the unfortunate decisions of actual occasions.
Stein then proceeded, in great (and always interesting) detail, to use Process Thought to explain abiogensis and the evolution of increasingly complex chemical processes that produce "emergent properties." (If you don't know what this means, don't worry about it).
Now, as I argued in my book Trinity and Process, I find a lot that is valuable in Process thought. But, as I also argued in this work, I also find much that is theologically and philosophical problematic. Among other things, the God of the Bible is depicted as an omnipotent Creator. He does miracles throughout biblical history (and yet today) and became Incarnate in Jesus Christ -- things Process thought simply cannot allow for. But the objection I had today concerned its explanation of the problem of evil.
Here's the gist of my argument: Stein appeals to God's intelligent creativity to account for the origin of life and the ever increasingly complexity of living organisms. Creation reflects Intelligent Design. I agree. But when it comes to accounting for natural evil, Stein and Process thinkers in general appeal to nothing more than the micro-scopic random decisions of actual occasions.
The trouble is, natural evil is as complex as natural goodness. A virus with the capacity to quickly mutate in ingenious ways as it works its way into the human system with the purpose of harming and destroying is INCREDIBLY COMPLEX. So, if good complexity is evidence of a benevolent intelligence, why shouldn't we conclude that destructive complexity is evidence of an EVIL INTELLIGENCE? (I know this is simplistic in as much as some viruses and bacteria have over-all beneficial results. Fine. But you'd be hard pressed to see the positive results of things like the AIDS or INFLUENZA viruses.)
The Bible ascribes incredible (though not omnipotent) power to Satan and his legions. Satan is "the god of this age" and the "principality and power of the air" who is "in control of the world" (2 Cor. 4:4;Eph 2:2; I Jn 5:19). This is why I'm a bit puzzled by the fact that, when it comes to explaining evil, hardly any theologians seem willing to give Satan any "credit" for natural evil. But given the Bible's witness, together with its testimony that some "natural processes" like DEATH are described as being due to Satan (Heb 2:14), and given the difficulty of accounting for natural evil any other way, I submit we are justified in concluding that God isn't the only intelligence at work in steering natural processes (including the evolutionary process, if you believe in that). Satan is also involved.
I think the main reason for the strange hesitancy of contemporary theologians to ascribe anything to Satan is that most are embarrassed by the concept of an evil cosmic being influencing the world. But why is believing in an evil cosmic being any more difficult than believing in a good cosmic being? Personally, because of the problem of evil, I'd have trouble believing in the latter if I DIDN'T believe in the former.
If you accept my Satan-in-nature theory, there's no longer any problem trying to explain why a good intelligent designer would design the AIDS virus or any other complex destructive organism. Natural process, as much as human beings, are under the influence of not only a good intelligent designer, but also of an evil intelligent anti-designer.
And folks, WE are called to align ourselves with the former, against the latter.
Blessings
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Eckhart Tolle’s "A New Earth" Book Review
As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm going to suspend our discussion of violence in the O.T. for one more post in order to review Eckhart Tolle’s new book, A New Earth. The book has become an overnight sensation thanks largely to Oprah's enthusiastic endorsement. In fact, Oprah is in the process of hosting a 10-week on-line course conducted by Tolle. Over two million students are participating in this! In response to this, there’s been a frenzy of e-mails and video clips being sent out by conservative Christians warning people that Oprah is a false prophet, the heretical pastor of the world's largest mega-church, a leader of a new cult, etc…
Hearing the buzz I decided to pick the book up at the airport and read it on the plane ride out to the conference in California I attended last week. Here’s my review.
As was true whenever I've read Krishnamurti, I found some aspects of Tolle’s book very helpful. For example, his analysis of the false and futile ways the ego tries to give itself worth is superb. His insights on judgment, the origins of violence and the causes of relational dysfunction were wonderful. His strong emphasis on “living in the present moment” is full of wisdom. And he is brilliant at helping readers identify ways in which they get stuck. I can easily understand why many readers experience “aha” moments as they read this material. Tolle masterfully names issues all of us wrestle with, usually without knowing it. One can't help but feel like Tolle is telling their own story.
But this is also why this book deeply concerns me. For, while Tolle is a master at identifying the universal human problem, the solution he offers to address this problem is, from a Christian perspective, as misguided as any proposed solution could be. I’ll say three things.
First, Tolle espouses a rather typical eastern metaphysics in which the true "you" is not the "you" that is distinct from other people, but the (alleged) "you" that is one with the universe. To grasp this, imagine waves on an ocean. Your individual ego is one such wave, but the true “you" in the eastern religious worldview is the ocean itself – as it is for me and every other “wave.” The wave -"you" is limited and temporary, but the ocean-"you" is unlimited and eternal. According to Tolle and the eastern worldview in general, every problem we have, individually and as a collective whole, is the result our tendency to identify with, cling to and fight for the limited, transitory wave instead of with the unlimited, eternal ocean.
In fact, for Tolle, as for most who espouse eastern spirituality, our individuality is something of an illusion – Maya, as the Hindus call it (9 -- all page numbers refer to A New Earth). What is ultimately real is our essence, which is the infinite ocean, the“Source” and (yes) “God” (see e.g. 26). If we can remain consciously aware of our essential oneness with all things on a moment-by-moment basis, we will find that the perpetual striving and anxiety that attaches to our individual ego disappears. We will thus be free, fulfilled, peaceful, etc... The three words that are “the secret of all success and happiness” are “One With Life” (115). Instead of living with an ego-centered awareness of how we (as individuals) are distinct from all other things, we must cultivate an ego-free awareness of how we are one with all things on a moment-by-moment basis. And when this happens, there is no longer an awareness of a "we" that is distinct from others at all.
This eastern worldview that Tolle espouses fundamentally contradicts the biblical worldview. It's important we understand why this is so. For Tolle, the world of distinct things and distinct people is only quasi-real. Ultimate reality is one, “formless,” “pure potentiality,” "pure awareness," etc. This means that relationships are only quasi-real, since relationships must take place between distinct persons. And this means that love is only quasi-real, since love is obviously a relationship.
This is why Tolle says that the biblical teaching that “God is love” is “not absolutely correct.” The truth, according to Tolle, is that...
In other words, since duality is not an ultimate reality, love is not an ultimate reality – which is why God can’t be said to be love. Love is rather a means to an end –the end being the recognition that you and all other people are not really distinct. Love thus helps us transcend the world of duality and enter “the light of consciousness itself.” "To love," Tolle says, "is to recognize yourself in another" (105, emphasis added). For, ultimately, there is no "other" to love. There is only the self.
By contrast – sharp contrast – the biblical worldview affirms that the teaching that "God is love" is not only “absolutely correct” but is the most important and correct truth there is (1 Jn 4:8). In the biblical worldview, God is an eternal, perfect, loving relationship. As Father, Son and Holy Spirit, God is eternal, perfect love shared between a plurality of "persons." Love and plurality are not pen-ultimate realities: they are ultimate reality!
Not only this, but out of perfect love, God created a world filled with ultimately real individuals with the hope that they'd share in and reflect the joy and ecstasy of his eternal, perfect, and ultimately real love. The goal of life, therefore, is not to dissolve all individuality into oneness but to eternally affirm individuality in loving relationship with all other individuals and with God. The goal is not to realize you are God, but to be eternally related to God with a love that participates in the perfect love that God eternally is.
This fundamental difference is clearly manifested in the way Tolle teaches people to "stay awake" and "live in the now," in contrast to the way Christians such as Brother Lawrence (The Practice of the Presence of God) and Frank Laubach have helped people "stay awake." Tolle encourages people to cultivate an on-going awareness of their essential oneness with life. The goal is to transcend the ego and lose any distinct awareness of yourself. By contrast, Brother Lawrence and Frank Laubach encourage people to cultivate an on-going awareness of the presence of God and to surrender to this presence on a moment-by-moment basis. Tolle aims at experiencing one's own divine "I AM" on a moment-by-moment basis. Brother Lawrence and Frank Laubach aim at experiencing a loving relationship with the I AM on a moment-by-moment basis.
Clearly, Tolle's eastern worldview fundamentally contradicts the most important aspect of the biblical worldview.
Second, there’s a profound inconsistency that pervades Tolle’s book (which, not coincidentally, I've also found in all of Krishnamurti's writings). Both in his book and on the Oprah show, Tolle claims he is not promoting a “belief system” (17). This is why he and Oprah claim his book -- and his course -- is compatible with whatever belief system a person might already have. Whatever you believe, Oprah says, Tolle's technique to become self-aware and live in the moment will make it better -- "like seasoning on a meal," she says. In fact, Tolle claims we are entering a new age in which we will witness the end “not only of all mythologies but also of ideologies and belief systems” (21). For, in keeping with Krishnamurti's life-long teaching, Tolle believes that belief systems are ego-centered interpretations that we impose on reality and that therefore hinder our pure awareness of reality. To the extent that one attains pure awareness in the present moment, one transcends beliefs.
Ironically, every page of Tolle's book contains beliefs -- that is, interpretations of reality. For example, the belief that belief systems are ego-centered interpretations that we impose on reality is a belief. So too, when Tolle announces that the belief that “God is love" is incorrect, he is obviously announcing a particular (mistaken) belief.
Along the same lines, a couple of sentences after prophesying the eventual demise of all belief systems, Tolle announces:
If evil has any reality – and it is relative, not an absolute reality – this is its definition: complete identification with the forms – physical forms, thought forms, emotional forms (22).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be a (mistaken) belief about the nature of evil.
In the very next sentence Tolle goes on to explain that the reason identifying with forms is “evil” is because it causes us to forget our “intrinsic oneness with every 'other' as well as with the Source” (22). This is yet another (mistaken) belief.
Several sentences following this, Tolle announces that when Jesus talks about “heaven” he is referring to “the inner realm of consciousness” (23). This is yet another belief -- and one that anyone who understands Jesus' words in their original first century Jewish milieu will easily identify as profoundly mistaken.
So too, when Tolle proclaims that "[a]ll religions are equally false and equally true, depending on how you use them" (he is apparently an expert on all of them) and that anyone who believes "only your religion is the truth" is "using it in the service of the ego" (70-71), he's clearly espousing a religious belief -- and note, one that he clearly believes is the only true one!
Finally, when Tolle repeatedly teaches that one should accept every experience as something that is good for them -- for "life," he claims, is helping their consciousness to evolve (e.g. 41, 57, etc.) -- he's espousing a particular religious dogma...one that I would suspect parents of kidnapped children as well as the kidnapped children themselves might find disagreeable.
I could go on, but enough has been said to demonstrate that Tolle's claim that he is not promoting a "belief system" is far from true. As a matter of fact, he is promoting a particular religious worldview buttressed by a plethora of religious beliefs. What's particular aggravating is that Tolle never supports these religious beliefs with evidence or argumentation. (How could he? He apparently isn't even aware he's propounding beliefs in the first place!) Tolle just announces these dogmas as though they were self-evident truths. While there are some aspects of this religious belief system that are consistent with Scripture and are even helpful, as I said above, its core is as antithetical to the Christian worldview as any religious belief system could be.
Third, the belief system Tolle espouses is at its very worst when he starts talking about Jesus and Christianity. According to Tolle, Jesus, like the Buddha, was an “early flower” in the evolution of human consciousness whose message was misunderstood and distorted (6). For example, Tolle suggests (without proof) that Jesus' message was distorted when people began to worship him as a god (15). If this is a distortion, it happened very early since its clear from the letters of the apostle Paul that Jesus' followers started worshiping him several years after he lived! Where Tolle got his "inside information" about a non-distorted version of Jesus' message that predates this he unfortunately does not tell.
Along the same lines, Tolle claims (incredibly!) that gnosticism and mysticism in the Christian tradition were movements that recovered the original insights of Jesus (16). The fact that all of the New Testament documents are thoroughly Jewish -- not gnostic -- and that we have no evidence of gnostic influenced Christianity until the second century (well after the New Testament documents were written) doesn't seem to concern Tolle.
So too, Tolle claims that when Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life,” he meant to say "[t]he very Being that you are is Truth" (71, emphasis added). He was speaking of the “I AM” that forms “the essence identity of every man and woman, every life-form in fact." This is the same as our “Buddha nature” our “Atman” or “the indwelling God” (71). Good to know.
Not only this, but when Jesus told us to deny ourselves, he meant to say that we were to “[n]egate … the illusion of the self” (79). Similarly, when Jesus referred to “eternal life” he was actually referring to “the dimension of the formless within” you (81). And, most fantastically, when Jesus died on the cross he was giving us “an archetypal image” of how our evolving consciousness is “burning up” our “ego” (102).
A hundred more illustrations of Tolle's remarkable pronouncements about Jesus and Christianity could be given, but I think you get the point. Two things are clear from all of this.
First, Tolle is promoting (without any supporting evidence or argumentation) an assortment of very particular religious beliefs about Jesus and Christianity that he clearly believes are the only true ones-- in sharp contrast to all the wrong beliefs that Christians have embraced throughout history. Now, I honestly would have no problem with any of this if Tolle was simply upfront with what he was doing. If Tolle came clean and admitted, "Folks, I'm trying to sell you a religious belief system that contradicts Christianity in the most profound ways imaginable," I'd applaud his effort and honesty! I'd think his alternative doctrines silly, of course. But I'd respect the candor. Unfortunately, whether by intention or just lack of self-awareness, Tolle is not forthright about the religious beliefs he promotes.
Second, as is clear to anybody with even a cursory understanding of the original context in which Jesus’ lived and even a modicum of information about Church History, Tolle's claims about Jesus and Christianity are demonstrably wrong. Indeed, a little sound exegesis (on the meaning of what Jesus taught) and historical research (on the early church) reveals his claims to be, frankly, comical. The only thing that is perhaps more comical is his apparent lack of awareness that he’s espousing an alternative set of religious dogmas in the first place -- and this from a man whose whole agenda is about becoming self-aware!
I am left, then, with deep concerns about this book and with the fact that Oprah (who explicitly identifies herself as Christian) is so enthusiastically supporting it. Again, I'm not denying there are some very good insights in this book. Nor am I joining the rank of those who are castigating Oprah as the new pastor of a new, heretical, internet "mega-church" or "cult." I believe both Oprah and Tolle mean well and are sincerely trying to help people improve their lives. But I am nonetheless very concerned that the masterful way Tolle identifies and diagnoses the struggles we all wrestle with will make readers more gullible in accepting the strongly anti-Christian religious belief system he's intentionally or unintentionally slipping in the back door.
I would thus encourage anyone who wants to read this book to do so with a very critical eye (c.f. 2 Tim. 4:3-4; 2 Pet. 2:1).
Better yet, if you're interesting in a Christ-centered way of learning how to live "in the present moment" -- and we all should be -- forget about Tolle and read Brother Lawrence and Frank Laubach's Practicing His Presence and/or J. De Caussade's The Sacrament of the Present Moment. Yes, live in the now! But do it in loving relationship with God rather than by believing you are God.
Blessings
Greg
Hearing the buzz I decided to pick the book up at the airport and read it on the plane ride out to the conference in California I attended last week. Here’s my review.
Insights in A New Earth
I have to start by saying I found nothing in this book that hasn’t been said many times before by others who espouse various forms of eastern spirituality. More specifically, it struck me that many (if not most) of Tolle’s ideas are simply restatements of ideas espoused by J. Krishnamurti -- though, curiously enough, Tolle never refers to him. At the same time, Tolle is a much better mass communicator than Krishnamurti (or any other promoter of eastern spirituality I've ever read). He has an ability to package esoteric ideas in ways that westerners can easily understand and absorb, and this undoubtedly goes a long way in explaining Tolle's success.As was true whenever I've read Krishnamurti, I found some aspects of Tolle’s book very helpful. For example, his analysis of the false and futile ways the ego tries to give itself worth is superb. His insights on judgment, the origins of violence and the causes of relational dysfunction were wonderful. His strong emphasis on “living in the present moment” is full of wisdom. And he is brilliant at helping readers identify ways in which they get stuck. I can easily understand why many readers experience “aha” moments as they read this material. Tolle masterfully names issues all of us wrestle with, usually without knowing it. One can't help but feel like Tolle is telling their own story.
But this is also why this book deeply concerns me. For, while Tolle is a master at identifying the universal human problem, the solution he offers to address this problem is, from a Christian perspective, as misguided as any proposed solution could be. I’ll say three things.
Individuality, Relations and Love as Maya
First, Tolle espouses a rather typical eastern metaphysics in which the true "you" is not the "you" that is distinct from other people, but the (alleged) "you" that is one with the universe. To grasp this, imagine waves on an ocean. Your individual ego is one such wave, but the true “you" in the eastern religious worldview is the ocean itself – as it is for me and every other “wave.” The wave -"you" is limited and temporary, but the ocean-"you" is unlimited and eternal. According to Tolle and the eastern worldview in general, every problem we have, individually and as a collective whole, is the result our tendency to identify with, cling to and fight for the limited, transitory wave instead of with the unlimited, eternal ocean.
In fact, for Tolle, as for most who espouse eastern spirituality, our individuality is something of an illusion – Maya, as the Hindus call it (9 -- all page numbers refer to A New Earth). What is ultimately real is our essence, which is the infinite ocean, the“Source” and (yes) “God” (see e.g. 26). If we can remain consciously aware of our essential oneness with all things on a moment-by-moment basis, we will find that the perpetual striving and anxiety that attaches to our individual ego disappears. We will thus be free, fulfilled, peaceful, etc... The three words that are “the secret of all success and happiness” are “One With Life” (115). Instead of living with an ego-centered awareness of how we (as individuals) are distinct from all other things, we must cultivate an ego-free awareness of how we are one with all things on a moment-by-moment basis. And when this happens, there is no longer an awareness of a "we" that is distinct from others at all.
This eastern worldview that Tolle espouses fundamentally contradicts the biblical worldview. It's important we understand why this is so. For Tolle, the world of distinct things and distinct people is only quasi-real. Ultimate reality is one, “formless,” “pure potentiality,” "pure awareness," etc. This means that relationships are only quasi-real, since relationships must take place between distinct persons. And this means that love is only quasi-real, since love is obviously a relationship.
This is why Tolle says that the biblical teaching that “God is love” is “not absolutely correct.” The truth, according to Tolle, is that...
God is the One Life and beyond the countless forms of life. Love implies duality: lover and beloved, subject and object. So love is the recognition of oneness in the world of duality (106).
In other words, since duality is not an ultimate reality, love is not an ultimate reality – which is why God can’t be said to be love. Love is rather a means to an end –the end being the recognition that you and all other people are not really distinct. Love thus helps us transcend the world of duality and enter “the light of consciousness itself.” "To love," Tolle says, "is to recognize yourself in another" (105, emphasis added). For, ultimately, there is no "other" to love. There is only the self.
By contrast – sharp contrast – the biblical worldview affirms that the teaching that "God is love" is not only “absolutely correct” but is the most important and correct truth there is (1 Jn 4:8). In the biblical worldview, God is an eternal, perfect, loving relationship. As Father, Son and Holy Spirit, God is eternal, perfect love shared between a plurality of "persons." Love and plurality are not pen-ultimate realities: they are ultimate reality!
Not only this, but out of perfect love, God created a world filled with ultimately real individuals with the hope that they'd share in and reflect the joy and ecstasy of his eternal, perfect, and ultimately real love. The goal of life, therefore, is not to dissolve all individuality into oneness but to eternally affirm individuality in loving relationship with all other individuals and with God. The goal is not to realize you are God, but to be eternally related to God with a love that participates in the perfect love that God eternally is.
This fundamental difference is clearly manifested in the way Tolle teaches people to "stay awake" and "live in the now," in contrast to the way Christians such as Brother Lawrence (The Practice of the Presence of God) and Frank Laubach have helped people "stay awake." Tolle encourages people to cultivate an on-going awareness of their essential oneness with life. The goal is to transcend the ego and lose any distinct awareness of yourself. By contrast, Brother Lawrence and Frank Laubach encourage people to cultivate an on-going awareness of the presence of God and to surrender to this presence on a moment-by-moment basis. Tolle aims at experiencing one's own divine "I AM" on a moment-by-moment basis. Brother Lawrence and Frank Laubach aim at experiencing a loving relationship with the I AM on a moment-by-moment basis.
Clearly, Tolle's eastern worldview fundamentally contradicts the most important aspect of the biblical worldview.
Freedom From A Religious Belief System?
Second, there’s a profound inconsistency that pervades Tolle’s book (which, not coincidentally, I've also found in all of Krishnamurti's writings). Both in his book and on the Oprah show, Tolle claims he is not promoting a “belief system” (17). This is why he and Oprah claim his book -- and his course -- is compatible with whatever belief system a person might already have. Whatever you believe, Oprah says, Tolle's technique to become self-aware and live in the moment will make it better -- "like seasoning on a meal," she says. In fact, Tolle claims we are entering a new age in which we will witness the end “not only of all mythologies but also of ideologies and belief systems” (21). For, in keeping with Krishnamurti's life-long teaching, Tolle believes that belief systems are ego-centered interpretations that we impose on reality and that therefore hinder our pure awareness of reality. To the extent that one attains pure awareness in the present moment, one transcends beliefs.
Ironically, every page of Tolle's book contains beliefs -- that is, interpretations of reality. For example, the belief that belief systems are ego-centered interpretations that we impose on reality is a belief. So too, when Tolle announces that the belief that “God is love" is incorrect, he is obviously announcing a particular (mistaken) belief.
Along the same lines, a couple of sentences after prophesying the eventual demise of all belief systems, Tolle announces:
If evil has any reality – and it is relative, not an absolute reality – this is its definition: complete identification with the forms – physical forms, thought forms, emotional forms (22).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be a (mistaken) belief about the nature of evil.
In the very next sentence Tolle goes on to explain that the reason identifying with forms is “evil” is because it causes us to forget our “intrinsic oneness with every 'other' as well as with the Source” (22). This is yet another (mistaken) belief.
Several sentences following this, Tolle announces that when Jesus talks about “heaven” he is referring to “the inner realm of consciousness” (23). This is yet another belief -- and one that anyone who understands Jesus' words in their original first century Jewish milieu will easily identify as profoundly mistaken.
So too, when Tolle proclaims that "[a]ll religions are equally false and equally true, depending on how you use them" (he is apparently an expert on all of them) and that anyone who believes "only your religion is the truth" is "using it in the service of the ego" (70-71), he's clearly espousing a religious belief -- and note, one that he clearly believes is the only true one!
Finally, when Tolle repeatedly teaches that one should accept every experience as something that is good for them -- for "life," he claims, is helping their consciousness to evolve (e.g. 41, 57, etc.) -- he's espousing a particular religious dogma...one that I would suspect parents of kidnapped children as well as the kidnapped children themselves might find disagreeable.
I could go on, but enough has been said to demonstrate that Tolle's claim that he is not promoting a "belief system" is far from true. As a matter of fact, he is promoting a particular religious worldview buttressed by a plethora of religious beliefs. What's particular aggravating is that Tolle never supports these religious beliefs with evidence or argumentation. (How could he? He apparently isn't even aware he's propounding beliefs in the first place!) Tolle just announces these dogmas as though they were self-evident truths. While there are some aspects of this religious belief system that are consistent with Scripture and are even helpful, as I said above, its core is as antithetical to the Christian worldview as any religious belief system could be.
Tolle's Teaching on Jesus and Christianity
Third, the belief system Tolle espouses is at its very worst when he starts talking about Jesus and Christianity. According to Tolle, Jesus, like the Buddha, was an “early flower” in the evolution of human consciousness whose message was misunderstood and distorted (6). For example, Tolle suggests (without proof) that Jesus' message was distorted when people began to worship him as a god (15). If this is a distortion, it happened very early since its clear from the letters of the apostle Paul that Jesus' followers started worshiping him several years after he lived! Where Tolle got his "inside information" about a non-distorted version of Jesus' message that predates this he unfortunately does not tell.
Along the same lines, Tolle claims (incredibly!) that gnosticism and mysticism in the Christian tradition were movements that recovered the original insights of Jesus (16). The fact that all of the New Testament documents are thoroughly Jewish -- not gnostic -- and that we have no evidence of gnostic influenced Christianity until the second century (well after the New Testament documents were written) doesn't seem to concern Tolle.
So too, Tolle claims that when Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life,” he meant to say "[t]he very Being that you are is Truth" (71, emphasis added). He was speaking of the “I AM” that forms “the essence identity of every man and woman, every life-form in fact." This is the same as our “Buddha nature” our “Atman” or “the indwelling God” (71). Good to know.
Not only this, but when Jesus told us to deny ourselves, he meant to say that we were to “[n]egate … the illusion of the self” (79). Similarly, when Jesus referred to “eternal life” he was actually referring to “the dimension of the formless within” you (81). And, most fantastically, when Jesus died on the cross he was giving us “an archetypal image” of how our evolving consciousness is “burning up” our “ego” (102).
A hundred more illustrations of Tolle's remarkable pronouncements about Jesus and Christianity could be given, but I think you get the point. Two things are clear from all of this.
First, Tolle is promoting (without any supporting evidence or argumentation) an assortment of very particular religious beliefs about Jesus and Christianity that he clearly believes are the only true ones-- in sharp contrast to all the wrong beliefs that Christians have embraced throughout history. Now, I honestly would have no problem with any of this if Tolle was simply upfront with what he was doing. If Tolle came clean and admitted, "Folks, I'm trying to sell you a religious belief system that contradicts Christianity in the most profound ways imaginable," I'd applaud his effort and honesty! I'd think his alternative doctrines silly, of course. But I'd respect the candor. Unfortunately, whether by intention or just lack of self-awareness, Tolle is not forthright about the religious beliefs he promotes.
Second, as is clear to anybody with even a cursory understanding of the original context in which Jesus’ lived and even a modicum of information about Church History, Tolle's claims about Jesus and Christianity are demonstrably wrong. Indeed, a little sound exegesis (on the meaning of what Jesus taught) and historical research (on the early church) reveals his claims to be, frankly, comical. The only thing that is perhaps more comical is his apparent lack of awareness that he’s espousing an alternative set of religious dogmas in the first place -- and this from a man whose whole agenda is about becoming self-aware!
I am left, then, with deep concerns about this book and with the fact that Oprah (who explicitly identifies herself as Christian) is so enthusiastically supporting it. Again, I'm not denying there are some very good insights in this book. Nor am I joining the rank of those who are castigating Oprah as the new pastor of a new, heretical, internet "mega-church" or "cult." I believe both Oprah and Tolle mean well and are sincerely trying to help people improve their lives. But I am nonetheless very concerned that the masterful way Tolle identifies and diagnoses the struggles we all wrestle with will make readers more gullible in accepting the strongly anti-Christian religious belief system he's intentionally or unintentionally slipping in the back door.
I would thus encourage anyone who wants to read this book to do so with a very critical eye (c.f. 2 Tim. 4:3-4; 2 Pet. 2:1).
Better yet, if you're interesting in a Christ-centered way of learning how to live "in the present moment" -- and we all should be -- forget about Tolle and read Brother Lawrence and Frank Laubach's Practicing His Presence and/or J. De Caussade's The Sacrament of the Present Moment. Yes, live in the now! But do it in loving relationship with God rather than by believing you are God.
Blessings
Greg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
