I once sat across the table from Alex Rosenberg, a well known philosopher, who argued persuasively that one cannot be both a Christian and accept natural selection. I think Alex intended this as a reductio for Christianity, as natural selection is both true by definition and also observed in the real world. Is it correct?
The recent Frame Wars (which followed the Clone Wars) suggest this is really what's at issue in the Expelled case (Yes, I said I wouldn't post on it, but this is broader than that kerfuffle). Is accepting evolution going to make nasty atheists of us all?
Let's think of reasons why it might:
1. If natural selection (NS) is correct, then Providence is out the window. Since NS relies on random variation, and (as Darwin argued forcefully) it is not likely that God would be directly responsible for the variants (we'd call them mutants) that might one day serve the interests of humans breeding pigeons, by analogy NS is unlikely to be squareable with Providence.
2. NS is incredibly wasteful - and many, if not most, organisms die horrible deaths in the process. Even the successful animals often die from the strain of being the alpha male in a herd, and so on.
3. Evolution forces immoral conclusions - it is OK to kill if you get better fitness as a result, and so on.
Now whether you think these claims have force or not, and I don't, for a Christian, they are what people usually put forward as reasons not to "believe" evolution (as if facts were something you could "believe" in or not at will). In particular what I call the Epicurean Objection is very common - if all this is true, then God, or the gods, simply do not care very much for us. Shit happens, and the deities are off contemplating imaginary numbers while it does (this is very close to Epicurus' actual view - he was no atheist, but a distant deist).
Since the raîson d'etre of the Christian deity is that He is directly involved in everything, this is contradictory. One might be an Epicurean theist and accept NS; not a Christian.
So there are two horns of a dilemma here. On the one hand, NS is observed. It's a fact, Jack. If you want a reasonable faith that deals with the real world, get over it. But on the other hand, it runs counter to the providential loving intimate deity of Christianity. One might get away with a Tillichian deity that is the "ground of being", but not a deity that suffers not the birds of the field to fall without concern. Points one and two are correct. Point three, an argument from consequences, is not compelling, or at any rate no more compelling that the more general Argument from Evil. If you find that compelling, then this is; if not, then not. Theodicial arguments (that justify God's ways to Man, as Houseman said) are no harder because of NS than they were before it.
And yet... I know such Christians. I know folk who understand evolutionary biology, in some cases better than I do, who also know their theological tradition well, and who do not resile from either. It's a hard balancing act, and not for everyone (most Christians take both their science and their theology on trust, a form of faith known as fides) but they manage it. Or do they? Are they just compartmentalising incompatible ideas?
As one who is now well out of the faith community and traditions of religious beliefs, I cannot say for sure. It seems to me that NS poses no logical difficulties that, say, the universal law of gravitation doesn't, psychological force notwithstanding. If God is not challenged by the natural process of universal attraction, why should He be challenged by the logically necessary principle of NS? In fact, that is an analogy made directly by Darwin. The problem here is a deeper one than mere evolution, philosophically. Is God constrained by, or need to be the underlying causal agent of, the physical world? Whatever answer you give to that is going to be true of NS and gravitation. It seems to me that if an intelligent and educated theist can answer in a way that does justice to both the science and the theology, then they are no worse off because of NS.
I think that nobody is purely rational, not even cephalodesque Elder Deities that eat creationists at movie premieres. So I am unable to say that my theist friends are compartmentalising their beliefs any more than, say, I do when I contemplate quantum mechanics and hold to a classical view of causation at the macro level. But there is a problem with Providence, taken literally. If God wants so many organisms to die horribly, or refuses to act to resolve it (Fall or no Fall) then He is not a providential deity. So maybe Providence has some other meaning. Not for me to say. Good luck to those trying to come to an accommodation. I merely point out that formally NS is not a special problem for theists - reality is.
The other well-known objection to evolution, based on biblical literalism, is a non-starter. Nobody is truly a biblical literalist or they'd think the universe was shaped like a tent or a dome with a brassy sky. Not even the weirdest literalists think that, or if they do, they aren't admitting it in public. If you can deal with the fact of an old earth and universe, stellar evolution, and descent with modification, then you have some answer to what the Fall might be in terms that are coherent with science, and I have no objections to your beliefs. Personally, I think it is on a par with Mormon cosmology and other religiously based etiologies, but I think none the less of you so long as you accept the facts and don't try to make me or the children of others believe what you do. It's a hard place to be in, I guess. Faith often leads to hard places. I hope you manage to balance it.
But for now I will say that I think one can be both a Christian and accept the facts of biology, in ways I can't understand. Alex assumes a view of rationality that excludes everybody from being rational, and so a tu quoque applies in reverse. I don't. There's a sort of bargain to be made, rationally, of a kind that we all have to make at one point or another, and theists are in no worse a situation than anyone else in my view. But the problem is there. Have at it.
Life Science
Stumble It!
Comments
I think NS kills the providential god dead. Besides, why does an omnipotent god need a means to achieve his ends? Can't he just skip NS or any other natural process and make lots of happy sycophants that he so wants?
I blogged on the logical necessity of evolution. Perhaps poorly as nobody really thought much of the post.
Have at it here:
http://philosophicalneuron.blogspot.com/2008/03/logical-necessity-of-evolution.html
Forgive my shameless post. Or not, I feel no shame.
Posted by: Brian English | March 24, 2008 7:20 PM
`Since the raison d'etre of the Christian deity is that He is directly involved in everything, this is contradictory. One might be an Epicurean theist and accept NS; not a Christian.'
This is the straw man in the argument. Christians have believed many many things over the last 2000 years; many of them believed that God was not directly involved. God set up the universe, and stepped out for a bit, and hasn't gotten back yet (or has, and has tinkered with things on occasion). In any case, in this belief, things are going according to his plan. You seem to take current fundamentalist views of Christianity as normative; they're not. Believing in natural selection and believing in the Christian God doesn't require any compartmentalization; it just requires the belief that this world is what God wanted.
Posted by: bill | March 24, 2008 7:31 PM
I apologize for how long and rambling this post is going to be. I'm sort of thinking-while-typing here, and these ideas are not wholly formed yet.
It seems to me that one can be a Christian and believe evolution (if "Christian" meanings nothing other than following the teachings of Jesus), but if one wants to be a supernaturalist Christian (as in taking at least some of the supernatural claims about god and angels and satan and jesus and miracles literally, as if they really exist), it would require some compartmentalization and suppression of cognitive dissonance. That an all-good, all-powerful, completely perfect and infallible God with intelligence, purposes and intentions would "create" through the incredibly sloppy process of natural selection is not something that can just be asserted by fiat. It needs to be demonstrated that such a claim is justified.
Also, evolution by natural selection explains the origins of our minds, our morals, even our religions (there is a burgeoning and exciting field of evolutionary study of religion emerging). Our sense of purpose, our feelings of love etc, our moral sense, our societies--these are evolved features of our species. Humans used to explain things such as the motion of the Sun teleologically--in terms of purposes, feelings, thoughts, social rules, etc. We later learned that when we do this it leads us astray. Why? Well, because the Sun is not a primate. It does not have these features any more than it has any other primate features. The Sun does not have purposes or goals or concerns for who follows social mores for the same reason it doesn't have eyes or arms or a brain or a heart or any other feature of an evolved organism.
But, of course, the universe as a whole is not a primate either. Why should it have any features of human primates? Why should it have a ruler? Why should it have a mind, either in it or over it? Why should it have purpose or intention? I think the theory of evolution has shown us that what we call "love" and "purpose" and "good" are features of ourselves, applicable to ourselves. Applying them beyond our needs and our societies and our lives seems to me to be entirely discredited by science. It seems to me that we can't speak of the "purpose" or the "ruler" of the universe for exactly the same reason we can't speak of the "tri-color binocular vision" of the universe. It's not a primate. It does not have these features. It has no ruler, no purposes, no intentions, no morals. These things are applicable to ourselves, but not to the universe as a whole.
But then, what's left of God? God is usually described as an intelligence with purposes and goals and intentions. Sounds like a primate to me. And evolution has made it to where such claims cannot be made simply by fiat. Again, if someone wants to claim the universe has a "purpose" they would have to justify even being able to make such a claim at all.
Of course, one could still posit a wholly impersonal Spinozist or Deist god without running afoul of the problems I'm talking about. These would only be problems for a God that is said to be a mind with such things as intelligence and love and concern for humans. But sometimes I wonder whether a "god" that's merely an impersonal, distant force without a mind or purposes or love or any such things can be properly called a "god" at all.
Posted by: Wes | March 24, 2008 7:42 PM
Bill, that is the setting up of the argument, not my conclusion.
Wes, you are correct that this is about defining what we think of as a Christian view. I don't know how to answer that question, so I leave it up to Christians to do. I was merely pointing out that NS is no more a problem than many other well accepted aspects of science.
The solution you offer - of a "naturalist" God - is effectively what the neo-Thomists offered (See Eric Maskall's Words and Images). God underlies all natural processes, in that view. [There is still a Problem of Evil - is this really the best of all possible worlds that God might have wanted?]
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | March 24, 2008 7:46 PM
All the religious folk I know that don't try to deny the facts of evolution and science tend to refer to scientific discovery as evidence of a deity. While I'm a secular Humanist because of my belief that our amazing world can exist fully independent of any higher power, I could certainly see the infinite beauty and complexity of our physical world as evidence for a grand design creating a brilliant mechanism of infinite layers presenting ever more areas for the human mind to explore. I don't believe that but I don't think natural selection and belief are necessarily irreconcilable. There's the idea of free will. This would, of course, be meaningless in a perfect universe with obvious proof of the divine.
I've also found that any theist with an actual rational viewpoint based on empirical evidence finds the idea of Hell for unbelievers to be Anathema. I have friends that are theists of various faiths and denominations and I'm thankful that none of them express belief in a deity so hateful that He would cast anyone into eternal torment. Even those belonging to Judeo-Christian faiths are appalled by the idea of a person suffering for beliefs rather than actions. Obviously this does not represent a huge portion of the "faithful," and I'm happy to exclude such hypocrites from my social circle.
Ultimately, societal function comes from belief. I think the crucial difference is whether those beliefs are based on a common good for the group or based on good for a ruling elite or unknowable higher being. I've yet to meet a modern biologist that argued for survival of the fittest as a societal strategy. That seems to be more the focus of the elite and the religious. Strange how often those seem to overlap.
I certainly believe the world would be better if guided by reason, compassion, and empathy rather than abstract religious belief but I'll settle for seeing science in the labs and the classrooms and belief in the temples, churches, and open discussion.
Posted by: Patrick | March 24, 2008 7:49 PM
I was going by my understanding of the type of God Spinoza and Einstein believed in. But, like I said, I'm iffy on whether such a being is really a "god" or not. It bears little relationship to what the vast majority of people mean when they say "god". A God with no intentions? No mind? No love? No concern for human affairs and social morals? Is that really a god? I guess if being eternal and all-pervading is all that is required to be a god, then it would be a god.
But I don't know. I'll have to check out Maskall, whom I have not read. Thanks for the recommendation. :)
Posted by: Wes | March 24, 2008 7:54 PM
I think the reason Squid-man and Dawkins tend to think scientific thinking leads to atheism is not necessarily because it is some sort of necessary entailment of some sort of logical argument, but rather that it just makes belief in God highly implausible. Evolution, for instance, pretty much does away with the ability to propose a teleological argument for God's existence (which just happens to be one of the most popular among lay people). It shows not only that there are alternatives to order through design, but that these alternatives make much more sense, given the evidence, be it in cosmology or biology. Scientific thinking in general also encourages people to hold beliefs for which there is evidence, and so naturally a belief in God that lacks evidence must be flushed down the tubes in the process. Really, I think their point of view is that scientific thinking gives us no reason to think God exists at all, and in that sense it leads to atheism. That seems to be a pretty air-tight conclusion, if you ask me, as I've yet to see any compelling logical arguments for God's existence, and certainly scientific evidence hasn't done so!
Posted by: Saint Gasoline | March 24, 2008 8:30 PM
The idea of a biological world that was "created" via NS is not incompatible with a Christian worldview. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a Jesuit priest and one of the paleontologists who discovered Peking Man. Teilhard's writings urge Christians to abandon a literal interpretation of the Bible, including perhaps, even the idea of original sin. He posits that the fundamental property of God's creative work is freedom. From his perspective God creates the universe, not from the bottom up, but by "calling" the cosmos from its origin (perhaps at the big bang) toward the Him (the fullness of existence). Since, the universe and all creation are essentially free, the random, unguided events of NS pose no problem. Teilhard argues that as God calls the cosmos toward him, events in history unfold. He does argue that evolution unfolds in a directional way, leading toward the genesis of consciousness. But this is not far from the ideas posed by Simon Conway Morris and others...
I'm not a Christian, but I like Teilhard's general approach to reconciling Science and Religion. He basically says that Religion must constantly be reinterpreted in light of scientific understanding. Since our understanding of science changes, religious understanding must also change.
Posted by: Rob McGehee | March 24, 2008 8:38 PM
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19021_58393_ENG_HTM.htm
is the American Episcopalian's semi-official stance on it, acknowledging that the Episcopal church, at least as I've known it and was raised in it, does get somewhat accomodational to beliefs normally associated with more extreme churches (at both ends of the spectrum), hence the current splits going on over the issue of gay marriage and the gay bishop.
In short, like the Church of England that the church is derived from, it has always had a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible, and openly acknowledges that basically Biblical myth was there in terms for the people it was written for. As humans have matured, so to should our understanding of God and how the creation worked.
It is by accepting this metaphorical "compromise" (as some would call it - others might term it more capitulation) that made it easy for many of the Episcopal clergy to sign the Clergy Letter.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | March 24, 2008 8:55 PM
Excellent post, John. Myself, I'm inclined to Steve Matheson's view, which I'll snip in here:
"There are at least two things that I find odd about much of what passes for atheist commentary on the problem of evil. First, folks like Rosenhouse seem to think that every instance of suffering (by humans or giraffes or echidnas or moths) represents a new instance of the problem of evil, as though the problem is magnified with each new meal by a carnivore. Heaping more dead salmon on the pile, it seems to me, doesn't change the basic problem of suffering in God's world. Second, I'm fascinated by the nearly-ubiquitous implication that the problem of evil is somehow linked to common descent. Huh? Humans, including Christians, were quite well acquainted with suffering and natural evil -- on an apocalyptic scale -- long before Darwin scooped Wallace. The problem of evil, if it's a problem for Christianity, isn't linked in any unique way to evolutionary theory."
Posted by: John Farrell | March 24, 2008 9:12 PM
This is an admirable view, but how thoroughgoing is it? I've often heard the claim that so-and-so interprets the Bible metaphorically rather than literally, only to discover that so-and-so interprets only select portions of the Bible metaphorically, while taking other portions literally (for example, treating the creation, flood, and tower of Babel as mythical metaphors but the Exodus and Resurrection as literal truth). I don't think this can accurately be called "Reading the Bible metaphorically"--it should be called "Reading certain parts of the Bible metaphorically and other parts literally."
The problems I was talking (admittedly not entirely coherently) about above would really apply to any theistic description of the world, whether Christian or Muslim or Hindu and whether thoroughly biblically literalist or only partially literalist. Are we even justified at all in attributing such things as purposes or goals or minds or morals to entities that are not humans (or at least other great apes like chimps and gorillas)?
At this point I often hear people object that I'm claiming one can't be both a scientist and religious, so let me just repeat that's not what I'm claiming. While I see supernatural claims as being at odds with science, I don't see religion as being necessarily supernatural. I kinda like Philip Kitcher's idea of a "spiritual religion" which de-emphasizes the supernatural elements and focuses on the good things about religion: community, togetherness, artistic expression, a feeling of awe in contemplating the universe, etc. But there's a trend of people moving away from liberal religion towards fundamentalist religion in the United States (and elsewhere, too), so maybe spiritual religion doesn't stand a chance. But it's at least plausible, and I think it's a laudable goal.
Posted by: Wes | March 24, 2008 10:00 PM
Clarification, please. Are you really saying that all non-primates are physically incapable of having a purpose or goal? So the cat that crawls silently on his belly into the dining room until he's under the table cloth just beneath the plate of food, then reaches just one paw out and up to feel along the edge of the table until he touches a piece of meat, then jerks the meat under the table and eats it (a favorite trick of a cat I used to have) has no purpose or goal at all - the cat just happens to be wandering purposelessly through that sequence of events?
Posted by: JuliaL | March 24, 2008 10:44 PM
Well I work with Hindus, Muslims, Christians etc; none appear to have any difficulty with the findings of Science nor with the theory of evolution.
Are they compartmentalizing or subjected to cognitive dissonance? Doesn't seem like it to me.
Is it down to ignorance of science? I would say no.
They see Science as a way of understanding how the natural world works. As for God(s) being active in the world this doesn't pose a problem as long as the action isn't detectable by science or unexplainable by natural causes.
Most are astounded and amazed about how the universe works, as revealed by science, and this tends to strengthen their faith not weaken it.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | March 24, 2008 10:48 PM
Personally, I think that any ideology risks destruction at the hands of science, whether it's political, economic or religious. The question is which gets modified first; their beliefs or the scientific evidence.
I'm willing to bet the vast majority of religious people have no trouble separating the god they believe in from the natural world. The standard line I hear is "Faith is God did it. Science is how he did it." That sort of ideology is incredibly flexible and versatile, and likely doesn't result in cognitive dissonance short of a theological or philosophical debate.
The problem comes with those people who have built up a dogmatic world view. Worst case scenario are authoritariaan personalities who rely completely on the words of their leaders to define their world view. I think the issue with dogmatics is not a "faith" issue, except for faith in their leaders. The bible HAS to be literally true because the preacher says it is. That means creationism HAS to be literally true. The entire belief system is a house of cards built on the solid bedrock of "The leader is never wrong".
In that way, they might be right. When reality is built up on big lies, the truth forces people to reassess that reality, and could bring the whole edifice down. I think that's why a certain segment of the population is so afraid of evolution, because they know they can't sustain their beliefs lacking evidence.
Bear in mind though, I think that's the vocal part of the problem. These authoritarians have large followings that trap much of the community in the bubble, and loud megaphones that influence people that might otherwise be open to science and evidence. The real trouble in American education is the rise of that segment of the population, and their current dominance over the media and political climate in the US.
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | March 24, 2008 11:11 PM
I agree with the conclusion that natural selection does not pose any obstacle to theism not already posed by gravitation, chemistry, particle physics and any other scientific theory that reliably explains the observable universe. I suspect the reason that natural selection became such a flashpoint is the Book of Genesis. I know of no reference in the bible refuting the existence of quarks, or insisting that gravity must not alter the passage of time. Unfortunately for biologists, Christianity considers itself a better authority, based on the 'wisdom' contained within its texts, on the origin of the universe and of life, than it does on particle physics or general relativity.
As for the co-belief of evolution and a personal god, I think, rather than being a fragile construct easily toppled, this is a much more stubborn viewpoint than denial of evolution. One reason moderate Christians distance themselves from Intelligent Design is that by making religion mutually exclusive to evolution and natural selection, the existance of god becomes refutable by rational thought. However, the compormise 'rational theist' position that the world is as we see it through the lens of science, and it is that way because god decided it ought to be, is much more difficult to counter.
Posted by: Chris | March 24, 2008 11:51 PM
In my opinion, the major theological problem is death, and suffering; in brief, the problem of evil.
We see death and suffering all the time around us in any case, and there are no end of theological justifications and explanations and reconciliations for the existence of death and suffering in a world set up by a benevolent deity.
Life isn't fair. There's no guarantee that we'll all get a happy family, with a secure home, an adequate diet, and 2.5 healthy and above-average children. Natural selection does not change that; and rejecting natural selection does nothing to address the basic problem, which is as old as religion.
The traditional Christian view of evil usually includes, in part, the notion of a "fallen creation". The idea is that death and suffering are NOT part of the design, but an unfortunate consequence, somehow, of us (or our ancestral representatives) stuffing things up somehow. The details get awkward.
Recognition of an ancient Earth pretty much establishes that death has been around much longer than we have; and so we start to get other reconciliations, which may "theologise" the fall or "redeem" death; but in any case the problem is there no matter HOW the forms of living things come about. If a believer can be reconciled to the existence of death and suffering as a part of life for as long as we've had life, then this is the biggest hurdle, I think.
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | March 25, 2008 12:57 AM
Minor glitch: the characterization of theodicy as the project of "justify[ing] God's ways to man" isn't Houseman's phrase: it's a quote from Milton. (Near the beginning, I think, of "Paradise Lost" -- Milton intended his retelling of the Fall etc to be theodical.)
Of you essay in general... I think I agree. I think that evaluating what force an argument like Alex's from NS to non-(Christian-style)-theism might have, a key consideration would be: just what does "random" mean?
Posted by: Allen Hazen | March 25, 2008 1:28 AM
Of course people can believe in both traditional Christianity and evolutionary biology. After all, it is a well known fact that people can cheerfully harbor all sorts of real or apparent contradictions without raising a sweat. But it doesn't really come down to logical contradiction because it is far from clear that the proposition that is both affirmed and denied in this case is the same proposition. The debate can always be finessed in the interest of peace and quiet. Anyhow, in the vast universe of discourse, what are the odds that A and not A would ever encounter one another? It seems to me that disagreeing requires almost as much pre-established harmony as agreeing.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | March 25, 2008 1:33 AM
Hi Allen! Long time no see. It's also Houseman's phrase, and I wanted the association with the preceding line of the linked poem:
Malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man
Randomness is part of the Epicurean Problem (see? It's also a Problem. But wait! There's more...) for theists. They want things to be guided in every aspect, while the Epicurean "swerve" introduces an unguided element that ever since has led to Epicureanism being treated as atheism, and Darwinian theory identified (very early on) with Epicureanism.
I think the only meaningful senses of "random" are unpredictability (for quantum events like atomic decay) and uncorrelated with fitness (for evolution). And I'm not sure about the former (handwave to t'Hooft's argument of sub-Planck level deterministic processes). In the latter sense mutations and other stochastic events aren't uncaused or anything, just not directed towards future success. They are also, of course, relatively unpredictable as individual events, if not as ensembles of events. That, of course, is a fact about us, not the events.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | March 25, 2008 1:57 AM
You make the false assumption that people who both believe in a Christian god and in NS manage to bring the two into some form of cognitive resonance. There is no reason to think this. More likely, they simply believe that two, mutually exclusive concepts are both true. Orwell called this ability doublethink. It arises from the fact that the human consciousness thinks in emotional terms instead of explicitly logical terms. Your amigdyla runs your mind, not your neo-cortex. If you fell positive affect towards to things, it doesn't matter if they are mutually exclusive logically, only that they are in harmony emotionally.
Posted by: Coyote | March 25, 2008 4:18 AM
Clearly one can be both a Christian and an accepter of natural selection and its role in biology.
Why clearly? Because many people do!
People are not by nature one hundred per cent rational, which I am very happy about!
Posted by: Sam C | March 25, 2008 4:22 AM
Well, that depends on what you mean by Christian. It was stated in an earlier comment that one definition is a person who follows the teachings of Jesus. Of course, Jesus taught that one must also follow the rules in the OT ("Not one word shall pass..." Keeping the Sabbath), except when he didn't (No divorce, not keeping the Sabbath). (I can't help that the Bible contradicts itself so much; I didn't write it.) So we can modify that statement to more explicitly delineate what is expected of a Christian.
A Christian would be required to take on absolute faith, everything in the Bible. That includes things like Hell and teh constant intervention in order to sustain the world.
Thus, while you may argue that some theoretical theist has reconciled their religion with reality, that theist would not technically be a Christian.
Posted by: Coyote | March 25, 2008 7:20 AM
Coyote, please don't confuse Christianity with Creationism - despite all the efforts of Creationists to engender that confusion.
God is not deceptive, but Creationism is, since it distorts scripture in order to tell small children lies about God's direct handiwork, recorded in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.
fusilier
James 2:24
Posted by: fusilier | March 25, 2008 8:45 AM
There is a stronger Christian argument against NS, that is specific to NS and not to something like QM or special relativity. It's got nothing to do with whether God is omnipotent and involved in overseeing the daily operation of the universe. The short form goes like this:
Man was created in a state of perfect grace, but fell from grace through disobedience to God's will. But God sent his son as a savior so that everyone who believes him can return to a state of perfect grace after death.
If there was no special creation, there was no state of perfect grace. If there was no state of perfect grace, there was no fall. If there was no fall, there is no need for salvation. If there is no need for salvation, Jesus is a fraud. If Jesus is a fraud, you cannot be a true Christian.
Oddly, I've only heard this argument put forward by non-Christians. It remains an open question whether this explains the antipathy of some Christians to natural selection when they have no problem with other areas of science.
As for what people believe, as near as I can tell people are perfectly capable of believing all kinds of crazy crap.
Posted by: HP | March 25, 2008 9:34 AM
Isn't the question just this: Is there some kind of tension between (1) belief in a loving, providential (and all-effective ... as in all-powerful and all-knowing-how-to-use-His-power) God and (2) acceptance of the scientific image as a whole? It looks to me as if there definitely is.
Now, evolution by natural selection is only part of the scientific image in this context, though an important part. It's not just the natural selection bit, it's the bit about us taking billions of years to evolve, being pre-dated by animals that we have evolved from, the Earth itself being billions of years old, and so on. It all makes the idea of a providential God seem less plausible, and complicates any attempt to defend the idea of a loving God.
There's a separate question as to how people deal with this tension psychologically, and another one about whether the tension is so bad that it makes it irrational to continue to be a Christian in the face of modern science, including Darwinian evolution. As for the second of these, defining rationality turns out to be very difficult.
Still, the tension is there and I don't think the fundies are wrong to sense it, even apart from their wish to preserve the literal 6000-year-odd history that can be extracted from the Bible if you trace the genealogies, etc.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | March 25, 2008 10:57 AM
I think that your arguments are all (or almost all)altogether too sophisticated; you cannot see the problem from the point of view of a fundie Christian:
If evolution is true, then then Adam and Eve never existed. Therefore there could not have been 'original sin' and hence no need for a Savior.
Evolution destroys the very foundation of fundamental Christianity and must be opposed at all costs.
QED
Posted by: Wuffencuckoo | March 25, 2008 12:10 PM
I think the issue is complicated because there are
(1) Christians for whom the Bible, understood in a particular way, trumps everything else, and so they reject natural selection;
(2) Christians who hold in tension both traditional theistic ideas and natural selection; and
(3) Christians who revise their thinking about God in light of natural selection and other data from the sciences.
Some would dispute calling the latter "Christians", but the same sort of diversity in terms of accepting the conclusions of philosophy and then science in the modern sense is there all through the history of Christianity.
The real question is thus not whether a Christian can accept natural selection, but how those of us who do should think differently about God as a result.
Posted by: James McGrath | March 25, 2008 12:11 PM
If predestination can not only be combined with, but even be a central part of certain branches of christianity, then I see no problem with natural selection. After all problem 2 and 3 are just as applicable to pre-destination as they are to natural selection.
And isn't the official christian answer that we just cannot understand God's plan through logical reasoning with our puny brains? Martin Luther said it like this: "Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things."
Posted by: Martijn ter Haar | March 25, 2008 12:14 PM
John S. Wilkins: "But wait! There's more...) for theists. They want things to be guided in every aspect,"
Not necessarily. I know that when I was a Christian, I had a view of the universe as something that pretty much ran itself, with God intervening occasionally to do things like miracles, and I doubt that I was the only one.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 25, 2008 12:23 PM
Mr Wilkins, congratulations on yet another erudite, stimulating and enlightening post. Ladies and Gentlemen of the comments thanks to all of you for what I think is the best discussion that I have ever read on Science Blogs even if you made all the points I had thought of making before I could make them myself. That'll teach me to get up earlier.
For myself I shall continue to accept the facts of science, remain a convinced atheists and go on knowing that Jerry is God like all true Dead Heads!
Posted by: Thony C. | March 25, 2008 1:26 PM
John Farrell-
Rosenhouse thinks no such thing. My view is that evolution makes the problem of evil and suffering, which is already a very serious (I would say fatal) one for Christianity, even worse. It is one thing to explain why God allows bad things to happen either among people or in nature. But it is quite another to explain why he did his creating with a mechanism that inevitably leads to huge amounts of pain and suffering, when it would seem he had other options available to him.
Posted by: Jason Rosenhouse | March 25, 2008 2:19 PM
Okay, let me say this again. Simply because someone says they are Christian in no way validates them as Christians. If you don't define Christians by their beliefs, then what do you define them by? My argument is, simply, that to be a Christian, you have to believe what the Bible says.
Thus it is elementary. The Bible says God created man. Reality says it didn't. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe the Bible over reality, without any evidence. Thus NS, which reflects reality has to be rejected by anyone who believes in the Bible. Otherwise, even though one might call one's self a Christian, you certainly couldn't mean that you believe in the God of the Bible. At that point, you're just making it up as you go along.
My initial point, which no one seems to have acknowledged, is that simply because you believe in NS and Christianity in no way infers that you have reconciled the two. It is fully possible for a person to believe two contradictory things without problem. Thus YOU CANNOT TAKE THE EXISTENCE OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN BOTH NS AND CHRISTIANITY AS EVIDENCE THAT THE TWO CAN BE RECONCILED. That is merely evidence that some people believe in both, not that they are reconcilable.
Posted by: Coyote | March 25, 2008 2:36 PM
There is a great deal I could say, but I'll start by giving my two cents on one particular thing
Man was created in a state of perfect grace, but fell from grace through disobedience to God's will. But God sent his son as a savior so that everyone who believes him can return to a state of perfect grace after death.
If there was no special creation, there was no state of perfect grace. If there was no state of perfect grace, there was no fall. If there was no fall, there is no need for salvation. If there is no need for salvation, Jesus is a fraud. If Jesus is a fraud, you cannot be a true Christian.
Oddly, I've only heard this argument put forward by non-Christians. It remains an open question whether this explains the antipathy of some Christians to natural selection when they have no problem with other areas of science.
I have seen this argument bother some Christians, and I've also seen it put forth by some Christians. In fact, for some, its the only thing they've got.
I've never really agreed with it (Not even being a Christian). My reasoning is a bit long, and not really scientific (so not really germane to scienceblogs), but a high level summary would be that it is our sins that we commit which condemn us. Not any "Fall" which happened in the past.
If salvation requires a singular "Fall" event to affect every individual, then every individual comes into the world "pre-damned" in a way. Sans any action we do, we are condemned. First of all, I do not think I am capable of taking that concept and reconciling it with a God who is at all just. Secondly though, 2nd Samuel is often cited as a story which shows that young children those (below the age of accountability) will go to heaven if they die. If we are "pre-damned" this is not the case.
Now, there are arguments around this that I've heard, but most of them require a rather strong Calvinistic view point.
Posted by: My Two Cents | March 25, 2008 5:12 PM
God Damn it John, I live in the Bible Belt in the USA and I have seen my country loose 4000 people in a stupid war, the economy ruined and a multitude of other stupid retarded bullshit that has a direct bearing on my life. This is a direct result of the "conservative Christian voting block(about 30% of the population)" being manipulated into electing George Bush and other bad actors. The Christian voting block simply is not functioning as a rational force in our democracy. Self destructive doesn't come close to describing the behavior of these folks. This not primarily a philosophical issue but one of power and money. Winning will determine the fate of the human race period. How do we win, not the debate but the struggle for rational society. It has become obvious that we are entering a recession/depression which will exacerbate the problems endemic to the global economy. Eating money damn it. Surrendering is not an option since they are quite oblivious to logic and factual information. Sad to say this is not a rant but reality. Have a nice day.
Posted by: charlie | March 25, 2008 6:06 PM
I might comment on this later... but I actually sort of liked what you said... I was expecting to be a bit more hostile to you, but you really hit the nail on the head.
Posted by: Josh | March 25, 2008 6:29 PM
Ergo we shouldn't ask such questions? Huh? That makes no sense to me whatever. I am discussing what the philosophical problems are, not whether western civilisation is on the verge of collapse into theocracy or anything.
Coyote: I think there are several definitions of "Christian" in play, and they depend on what your purpose is. It's important not to conflate them (as I myself have done from time to time),
The "Christians are believers in X" defnition fails in many cases because it would rule out most Christians. It's a "No True Scotsman" definition, usually based on one or the other of the thousands of Christianities to the exclusion of the rest. It is not the definition I am interested in here.
The standard "external" definition is that someone is a Christian if they self-identify as one. That is also not what I am concerned with. I am more interested in a historical tradition definition - a Christian is someone who is heir to the intellectual traditions of ordinary (i.e., not cultish) Christianity, which includes the catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions. This is a historical definition that works well enough. If I were discussing older views, it would include the Gnostic Christians, and the Arians, etc.
On this account, it is a good argument that the two are reconcileable in a historical and sociological sense, just as it is that modern science and religious belief are not mutually incompatible. Whether it is rational to believe both is another matter, and I think that this is what is at issue - can an adherent of small "c" catholic Christianity consistently and rationally accept NS? I think they can, with adjustments in their worldview. Of course, to those who think a Christian worldview can never be adjusted because it is timelessly true, the answer is, probably no. But then they have the cosmology of Genesis to deal with.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | March 25, 2008 6:29 PM
Wouldn't the historical view of Christianity break down the closer you get to the split with Judaism? At what point do you stop considering a person a Jew and start considering them a Christian? The same holds for Islam. Muslims believe a lot of the same things as Christians. Examples are the virgin birth and various miracles. Historically the two religions lead into one another. So at what point does it stop being Christianity and start being Islam? The only real demarcation would be the change in beliefs. Thus, even in the historical sense, you must still define Christianity by belief. Specifically, you would have to define Christianity as a belief that the OT and NT are the word of God and historical truth.
Defining Christianity so narrowly does exclude a lot of people. One could make a strong argument that they really aren't Christians. That they are people who hold post-Enlightenment values given to them by society that they then project onto a handful of myths that, at least in America, most don't actually know much about. They wouldn't be Christian so much as Secular Humanists with delusions of grandeur.
Posted by: Coyote | March 25, 2008 7:04 PM
Historical definitions always have this problem - it is also true in evolutionary biology. But if we can take a reading at some point after the divergence, then we have sufficient resolution to be getting on with. It seems to me the NT is rife with cases where the divergence was insufficiently complete (e.g., James versus Paul).
As to "true Christianity" it is worth noting that humanism was initially a Christian movement, with such folk as Cusa and Erasmus of Rotterdam as the motivators. It is only in America that humanism has been seen as anti-Christian, and secularism was invented to deal with the fact that every church held they were right over all the others, and to allow all churches to have freedom from government control. So I fail to see why secular humanism is somehow non-Christian.
There are no "essential" elements in Christian doctrine, apart from begging the question about what is Christian in the first place. It may be nice to say "Nicene Creed" out loud, but the Arians were Christian whether you like it or not, and the Unitarians are today. An externalist account would treat doctrinally "impure" cases are Christian because of their shared origins. Islam has sufficient non-Christian roots (i.e., in the Arabian peninsula's endogenous religions) and such a mix of Jewish and Christian influences that it cannot be seen solely as a Christian offshoot. Mormonism, on the other hand is just Christian, although it has the multiplicity of deities.
In any case, if you narrowly define "Christian" so that almost nobody is one, then we are no longer talking about the same things.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | March 25, 2008 7:32 PM
According to the larger denominations, yes. No doublethink required, and theodicy becomes utterly trivial.
Surprisingly close to Apathetic Agnosticism, if you think about it, no?
------------------------
That's not good for Teilhard de Chardin, though -- it's bad for Conway Morris. Teilhard de Chardin's writings are tiring, cringe-inducing woo. The reconciliatory idea is nice, but it's a complete failure.
(I'm not sure if the link still works. It doesn't work right here right now. It's a review of The Phenomenon of Man by Sir Peter Medawar.)
Catholic dogma (AFAIK): having evolved from animals, we have a sinful nature, we are born with sin like with an instinct, and therefore too need a Savior.
But, dude, with all those contradictions in the Bible, there is nobody who believes all what it says, no, not one. Or can you find someone who believes that Man was created both before (Gen 2) and after (Gen 1) the plants and animals? Or someone who believes that both faith alone and faith plus works and works alone and words alone are necessary and sufficient for salvation?
All of those self-declared literalists quote-mine the Bible just like how they quote-mine everything else.
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 25, 2008 9:06 PM
OK, so using "both" in front of a list of four items was not a smart move. And I suppose I should have written "all that it says" or "all of what it says". I blame the fact that it's 2 AM. Good night.
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 25, 2008 9:09 PM
I am more interested in a historical tradition definition - a Christian is someone who is heir to the intellectual traditions of ordinary (i.e., not cultish) Christianity, which includes the catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions. This is a historical definition that works well enough. If I were discussing older views, it would include the Gnostic Christians, and the Arians, etc.
On this account, it is a good argument that the two are reconcileable in a historical and sociological sense, just as it is that modern science and religious belief are not mutually incompatible.
Yes. And if I may quote from one of my favorite 12th century scholars:
"[from Adelard's Quaestiones naturales] [T]he natural order does not exist confusedly and without rational arrangement, and human reason should be listened to concerning those things it treats of. But when it completely fails, then the matter should be referred to God. Therefore, since we have not yet completely lost the use of our minds, let us return to reason."
Posted by: John Farrell | March 25, 2008 9:36 PM
Christianity has undergone significant evolution since its inception two thousand years ago. So much so, that there are a variety of theological positions and beliefs that are compatible with natural selection. Calvinism, for instance, seems rather consistent with natural selection.
The Christian must decide whether his or her theology must shape his view of reality, or whether he or she should use reality to shape theology.
The notion that the "wastefulness" of natural selection goes against the tenets of Christianity is inaccurate. Let's not forget the Global Deluge, real or not. Even as an anecdote, it indicates that the Judeo-Christian God has no qualms with excessiveness.
Posted by: NP | March 26, 2008 7:47 AM
On a lighter note, here I sit in a Muslim state (sharia law officially but really nice people) and what did I see in the shopping mall on my way home?
Well it was animatronic dinosaurs, the signs all in Arabic, and the data was all correct as far as I could make out (I got a friendly local to translate). What they ate (T Rex ate meat, who would Adam & Eve it) and the ages seemed OK; multiple-millions of years. Ken Ham would have a fit.
A few months ago it was a diorama of the universe from the big bang to now, again as per presnt scientific understanding.
Please note; this wouldn't go up without goverment approval.
Now I know that this thread is about Christians not Muslims but they have similar roots.
This idea that religious belief need clash with scientific examination and understanding of how the world works is silly. No dissonance (cognitive or otherwise), no clash, just using Scienec to understand how God (assuming you believe in God) created the universe and the laws he instilled at the begining so that it would function in a lawful (perhaps that should be seemingly lawful) way.
I don't reside in the USA so perhaps my understanding of their problems with self styled fundamentalist Christians is simplistic, but; seems to me it might be more about poor education and people being misled by snake oil salesmen rather than any inherrent contradiction and they shouldn't generalise from a small portion of those claiming to be Christian.
The majority of those styling themselves Christian (Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Anglicans (even CoE Anglican Bishops) included) seem to have no problem.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | March 26, 2008 11:40 AM
...to me it might be more about poor education and people being misled by snake oil salesmen rather than any inherrent contradiction...
Chris, that's the best summary of what the bugwitted Discovery Institute represents I've heard yet.
Bravo!
Posted by: John Farrell | March 26, 2008 2:29 PM
John, the first reason why "accepting evolution going to make nasty atheists of us all:"
"If natural selection (NS) is correct, then Providence is out the window. Since NS relies on random variation, and (as Darwin argued forcefully) it is not likely that God would be directly responsible for the variants (we'd call them mutants) that might one day serve the interests of humans breeding pigeons, by analogy NS is unlikely to be squareable with Providence."
seems to analogous to Einsteins objection to quantum mechanics i.e. "God does not play dice!" From other writings by Einstein I think that he uses the concept of 'God' metaphorically rather than literally. It could be argued that this 'objection' has more to do with ones unwillingness to accept a non classical (i.e. non mechanistic) view of the universe rather than being open to a probabilistic view. In this sense, this objection is not inherently associated with any religion; Abramic or otherwise, and so is not relevant to atheism or theism.
Posted by: Tim | March 26, 2008 3:11 PM
Christianity is a belief system. How do you define a belief system excepts by the beliefs held within that system?
Calvinism is most assuredly not compatible with NS. Calvinism explicitly contains Biblical literalism. That means no NS and YE creationism.
Posted by: Coyote | March 26, 2008 3:33 PM
John,
What's your current thinking on these?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance-theistic.html
I remember some of the discussion in the "good ole' days" of usenet.
Posted by: Mike | March 26, 2008 5:12 PM
Coyote: the problem is that the only way Christianity is a worldview, a coherent belief system, is if you (question-beggingly) assume that yours or some particular version is Christian, and no other. To outsiders, Christians believe in the deity of Jesus, and the nondeity of Jesus, in damnation of sinners to an eternity in hell, and to universal salvation, in infant baptism, and adult-only baptism, in the innocence of Mary and the ordinariness of Mary, etc., etc., etc. Instead we outside the religion have to look at the things Christians, self-described, claim. And empirically, Christianity is not a coherent set of beliefs but a set of somewhat incoherent traditions.
Mike, that guy wrote when he was very undereducated, but I still tend to think he was on the right track. Unlike his "tautology" article on the same site, I wouldn't expect him to change very much now.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | March 26, 2008 10:55 PM
Interesting stuff, as usual.
I don't see that evolutionary theory raises the Problem of Evil to a qualitatively different level than the fact, quite evident throughout the history of Christianity and prior to it, that Nature is "red in tooth and claw." Quantitatively, I don't think evolutionary theory changes the mere facts of the fossil record, i.e., that huge numbers of life forms died out during the history of the planet.
Does it change the moral calculus if, rather than simply standing by as all this death took place, God used it as a tool to create species, including humans? Very likely not for believers - in fact, something similar is used to explain away the PofE when Bad Things Happen to Good People, i.e., "it's all part of God's [incomprehensible] plan."
Posted by: Jud | March 27, 2008 7:52 AM
Something else I've been thinking about, related to the current discussion:
If evolutionary theory doesn't raise the Problem of Evil to a new and difficult pitch for Christians, why has it been almost uniquely reviled by Christians among scientific theories? I doubt it's the element of chance that it introduces - quantum theory does so equally if not more so.
I think to get a handle on this we need to look at the only other science to come in for such serious Christian criticism, heliocentrism. The thing heliocentrism and evolutionary theory share is that they are both explanations for splendors once thought to be so wondrous (the heavens, life on Earth) that only God could have made them. And of course both the creation of the heavens and the creation of life on Earth are right there in the Genesis account.
Thus, ISTM that evolutionary theory is problematic for Christians not so much because it poses the Problem of Evil in any unique way, but because it steals the Deity's thunder.
Posted by: Jud | March 27, 2008 8:04 AM
But it is linked in a contingent way. We're still fighting against the Victorian perspective -- I've read a fair amount of the Victorian natural history literature, especially the stuff that was prepared for mass consumption (collectors and hobbyists and children, for instance), and it's a lot of amazing treacle. They're constantly going on and on about the beauty of the countryside and the seashore, and how everything nestles together in blissful perfection, thanks to the beneficence of the Lord, yadda yadda yadda. So yeah, evolution doesn't defy Christianity in a general sense, especially since Christianity can be appallingly grim and doesn't hesitate to throw a lot of blame on mankind for the evils of the world, but the peculiarly smug version of Christianity that was the hallmark of Charles Darwin's world was in deep conflict. Ichneumonid wasps were not played up for the kiddies in the books of the time.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 27, 2008 9:39 AM
It's worth noting that the "nature red in tooth and claw" of Tennyson was pretty rarefied in Victorian society. It was the domain of intellectuals with ennui, a bit like Sartre in the 50s. Most of the sermons and pamphlets and popular science was, as PZ says, treacle.
Evolution pushed that in people's faces. And more than the theists disliked it - Marx and Engels register their disapproval, and a lot of folk accused Darwin of favouring chance over lawful behaviour (such as Herschel) who were not motivated by theism. Hence the accusation that Darwinism equals Epicureanism equals atheism. Here's a good summary of that accusation over history, resulting in Bejamin Wiker's awful book.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | March 27, 2008 10:02 AM
As a Christian my self, I have thought two terms in relating to this topic for myself, and I would like to bring for discussion here; 'Natural selection' and ' Nature's selective force'.
Natural selection is emphasizing on selection itself and is under open system, while Nature's selection force is emphasizing on the active body Nature and its possible mechanism of selecting biological genes.
Natural selection is no direction, could be forwards and backwards; while Nature's selection force is directional and irreversible.
The past, now and future of Nature, in chronological scale are different; for instance, some period in the past the Nature can assimilate life from non-living material, while now we do not have evidence, in the future is unknown. Some period in the past, successful gene selection to produce dramatic different species had evidences. And now, the higher forms of organism are in mature state mostly, either extinct or degeneration in evolving new species.
Nature's history perhaps is infinite if we look in the past. Therefore, I speculate that natural selection of Darwin's theory is in two dimensions, and Nature's selection force is three or four, .. dimensions.
The semantics of science at this moment is two dimensions that is the reason to having difficulty. It also limits the understanding of total reality and has problem in coherent with other dimensions. Therefore, we need to look at the possible solution from semantics.
One point which I speculate the reason of using Nature's selection force to having at least three dimensions is the outcomes are directional,; directing at higher forms of structures and functions. Natural selection is only able to depict the speed which is not the true facts and realities; Nature's selection force nonetheless is able to depict the velocity which is more accurate.
The history to have the phenomena of evolution in proportional to Nature's history perhaps is less than 0.00001%. The forces of Nature are much beyond our imagination that is the reason we use the term God.
Posted by: paiwan | March 27, 2008 11:28 AM
Thanks for the link, John - will read it fully when I have more time.
Accepting what you and PZ have said regarding the Theory of Evolution posing the Problem of Evil (at least in Nature - many Christians then and now consider humans a special case divorced from [the rest of] Nature) in a particularly pointed way almost unique for its time, how then to account for the following:
- The extreme Christian criticism of heliocentrism, which did not pose the PoE; and
- The lack of such criticism (particularly among fundamentalists) of science such as biological, chemical or nuclear weapons research, which surely does pose the PoE.
Posted by: Jud | March 27, 2008 2:52 PM
If I may recommend one RC's thoughtful take on PoE, then:
http://problemsofevil.blogspot.com/
Posted by: John Farrell | March 27, 2008 6:13 PM
Further to #53 my own post, I would say the term natural selection has false connotation; nature is arbitrary, mechanic, life and evolution are purely the result of probability. I just like to bring the reflection on the outcomes are not consistent with this kind of speculations. If natural selection is based on the false connotation, for instance by probability, then evolution must be chaotic in the ways back and forth, the probability of evolving back is equal to evolving forwards, please think of this contradiction. But the fact is the evolution directional as the analog of velocity; it is not the analog of speed.
Therefore, the definition of Nature and its depiction is as critical as the dynamism of selection process itself.
Furthermore, I would like to say biologists need to focusing on using proper terms and avoiding the improper connotations in philosophy and theology, perhaps is a basic guideline-humility. And philosophers and theologians should work together and hard to bring the coherent structure of knowledges. The world will be more peaceful.
Posted by: paiwan | March 27, 2008 9:35 PM
"Christian" is not a homogeneous class with respect to science and religious belief. A Christian can believe a wide range of things, natural selection among them. Was not Pope Pius XII a Christian? Is not Ken Miller a Christian? Is not the pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church down the street ( who is an ardent evolutionist) a Christian? The distinction that you are debating represents the fundamentalist-progressive (or what have you) doctrinal split of many religions well beyond Christianity.