Back in November, Brian asked why it is so difficult for many people to square their faith with evolution. Based on discussions I've had with friends of mine who fall into this category, there are two principle obstacles to people being able to square their faith with the acceptance of the correctness of evolution. The first is a question of biblical interpretation, and the second is a philosophical problem.
The problem of interpretation arises because many Christians* believe that every passage of the Bible must be interpreted literally. If the Bible says the world was created in six days, then by gum, it was. They make no allowance for the possibility of a legitimate figurative or allegorical interpretation of Scripture**. Because of this, any idea resting on something which contradicts a literal reading of the Scriptures- in this case, the evolution of species over 3.5 billion years- is not only wrong but heretical as well.
The philosophical problem, and it is a problem, is that many of these people will make the further argument that the acceptance of evolution equates to the acceptance of Naturalism, or Materialism, the belief that all the physical world is all that exists. Needless to say, this is patently absurd. Naturalism can only follow from evolution if the only option is between Biblical literalism and Naturalism because evolution only contradicts a literal reading of the first two chapters of Genesis, never mind that the first two chapters of Genesis contradict themselves if read literally.*** In point of fact, evolution can shed no light one way or the other on the reality of the supernatural and its interaction with the natural world because, like any theory in the natural sciences, it gives natural explanations for observed natural phenomena. The realm of the supernatural is reserved for philosophy and, ultimately, theology.
When push comes to shove, truth cannot contradict truth. Either Christianity is true (as I belive), or it isn't. Either evolution is correct (again, as I believe), or it isn't. If both are true, then the latter can fit within the former. However, if the truth of one proves the falsity of the other, I suspect Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) is not long for this world.
*This includes many Catholics, though Catholic teaching has never stated that the Bible must be interpreted literally. Indeed, such Catholic thinkers as St. Augustine, John Henry Cardinal Newman, and Benedict XVI have not held to a strictly literal reading of Scripture.
**While it is legitimate to interpret certain passages of Scripture figuratively, or allegorically, not all passages of Scripture can be so read without gutting the whole of Christianity. For instance, the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ cannot be read figuratively without gutting the substance of Christianity.
***If you don't believe me, read them closely.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Thursday, January 19, 2006
If Attacked by Terrorists
France vows to bomb itself into submission.
In all seriousness though, Chirac seems to understand on some level that the way to deal with terrorists is to meet strength with strength. Witness bin Laden's latest message. The combination of spin and chutzpah in that tape would make Baghdad Bob proud, and the fact that Osama sees the need to make such a laughable statement, particularly his insistence that al Qaeda is winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, indicates that things are not going well for al Qaeda. Indeed, the reason things are going so badly for al Qaeda is because following 9/11, the Bush administration decided to meet their strength with ours, and in doing so, we have found that al Qaeda cannot stand and fight, never mind actually take and hold territory. As devastating as the Iraqi insurgency may be, its success is predicated upon our perceived weaknesses, not their actual strengths. This could never be said about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union. We had to actually defeat them; with al Qaeda we simply have to keep on doing what we're doing, occasionally swatting at them like a horse swats at flies with his tail.
States like Iran, Syria and North Korea are another matter. We need to figure out how to deal with them effectively, and there aren't any palatable options. As with WWII and the Cold War, our biggest problems are with nation-states. Al Qaeda is just a nuisance to be slapped down when the opportunity arises.
In all seriousness though, Chirac seems to understand on some level that the way to deal with terrorists is to meet strength with strength. Witness bin Laden's latest message. The combination of spin and chutzpah in that tape would make Baghdad Bob proud, and the fact that Osama sees the need to make such a laughable statement, particularly his insistence that al Qaeda is winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, indicates that things are not going well for al Qaeda. Indeed, the reason things are going so badly for al Qaeda is because following 9/11, the Bush administration decided to meet their strength with ours, and in doing so, we have found that al Qaeda cannot stand and fight, never mind actually take and hold territory. As devastating as the Iraqi insurgency may be, its success is predicated upon our perceived weaknesses, not their actual strengths. This could never be said about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union. We had to actually defeat them; with al Qaeda we simply have to keep on doing what we're doing, occasionally swatting at them like a horse swats at flies with his tail.
States like Iran, Syria and North Korea are another matter. We need to figure out how to deal with them effectively, and there aren't any palatable options. As with WWII and the Cold War, our biggest problems are with nation-states. Al Qaeda is just a nuisance to be slapped down when the opportunity arises.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Into the Great White North
Apparently, the United states has a contingency plan for invading Canada. I suspect our primary weapons will be profanity, loud music and the battle frenzy brought on as a result of hearing "eh" aappended to everything.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Disturbing
The New York Times is reporting that Iran has resumed its nuclear program, including uranium enrichment. That Iran is able to do this without fear of repercussion shows the inherent limits of the diplomatic process. Iran has determined that it is in its vital interest to acquire nuclear weapons, and only physical intervention will prevent this acquisition. This isn't necessarily a call for military intervention, even if it would satisfy the demands of some that our forces be withdrawn from Iraq. The military option should not be taken off the table, but there are other ways to exert pressure on the Iranian regime, such as working with dissident groups to undermine the regime from within the country. It's about time we started realistically considering these options and expressing our consideration of them publicly.
Important Column
Spengler delivers another excellent, excellent column on the differences between Islam (and Mormonism) on the one hand and Christianity and Judaism on the other. I do disagree with him on one point, though.
Spengler states:
"It is dangerous to publish anything that Muslims might interpret as blasphemy, as Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest newspaper, discovered when it published 12 cartoons of Mohammed, some portraying the Prophet in violent acts. Muslim protests and threats caused two of the cartoonists to go into hiding. After Arab foreign ministers condemned Denmark for refusing to act against the newspaper, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen offered a near-apology in his New Year's address.
"Strange as it may seem, the pope must whisper when he wants to state agreement with conventional Muslim opinion, namely that the Koranic prophecy is fixed for all time such that Islam cannot reform itself. If Islam cannot change, then a likely outcome will be civilizational war, something too horrific for US leaders to contemplate. What Benedict XVI thinks about the likelihood of civilizational war I do not know. Two elements of context, though, set in relief his reported comments concerning Islam's incapacity to reform."
The implication here is that Benedict is making his statements quietly because he fears retribution. This strikes me false. Instead, it seems to me that Benedict made his statements in the forum he did not out of fear, but out of prudence. His opinion on the reformability of Islam is certainly not one to be disregarded lightly- indeed, I am inclined to agree with it, but Benedict realizes that he may be wrong. Furthermore, active Western engagement with Islam, be it American foreign policy or French attempts to restrict the wearing of the hijab by Muslim girls in French schools , are premised on the notion that the West and Islam can be reconciled to some degree or another, and a statement such a statement as the one Benedict made, made by a figure with his standing in a public forum risk undermining these efforts at a time when the jury is still out on this count. In other words, I suspect Benedict hopes he is wrong but fears he may be right and doesn't want to issue what may end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. What's more, if he is right, it is essential that people are aware of the irreconcilability of Islam and the West and that steps be taken to ensure that we are prepared to deal with what would be the inevitable failure of Western policy both in the Middle East and Europe.
Spengler states:
"It is dangerous to publish anything that Muslims might interpret as blasphemy, as Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest newspaper, discovered when it published 12 cartoons of Mohammed, some portraying the Prophet in violent acts. Muslim protests and threats caused two of the cartoonists to go into hiding. After Arab foreign ministers condemned Denmark for refusing to act against the newspaper, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen offered a near-apology in his New Year's address.
"Strange as it may seem, the pope must whisper when he wants to state agreement with conventional Muslim opinion, namely that the Koranic prophecy is fixed for all time such that Islam cannot reform itself. If Islam cannot change, then a likely outcome will be civilizational war, something too horrific for US leaders to contemplate. What Benedict XVI thinks about the likelihood of civilizational war I do not know. Two elements of context, though, set in relief his reported comments concerning Islam's incapacity to reform."
The implication here is that Benedict is making his statements quietly because he fears retribution. This strikes me false. Instead, it seems to me that Benedict made his statements in the forum he did not out of fear, but out of prudence. His opinion on the reformability of Islam is certainly not one to be disregarded lightly- indeed, I am inclined to agree with it, but Benedict realizes that he may be wrong. Furthermore, active Western engagement with Islam, be it American foreign policy or French attempts to restrict the wearing of the hijab by Muslim girls in French schools , are premised on the notion that the West and Islam can be reconciled to some degree or another, and a statement such a statement as the one Benedict made, made by a figure with his standing in a public forum risk undermining these efforts at a time when the jury is still out on this count. In other words, I suspect Benedict hopes he is wrong but fears he may be right and doesn't want to issue what may end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. What's more, if he is right, it is essential that people are aware of the irreconcilability of Islam and the West and that steps be taken to ensure that we are prepared to deal with what would be the inevitable failure of Western policy both in the Middle East and Europe.
Monday, January 09, 2006
And I Thought the Government Couldn't Do Anything About Fuel Prices
Apparently they can. Of course, I doubt it's what most advocates of government action had in mind.
Osama Dead?
Apparently so, according to Michael Ledeen. If this proves to be true, it's good news from a symbolic standpoint. However, I don't know how much of an effect it will have on a practical level. Osama wasn't terribly involved in the day-to-day operations of al Qaeda, and he hadn't exactly been making many public appearances to bolster recruiting. If he is dead, there may be some drop-off in new membership in al Qaeda as a result.
But even if al Qaeda is devastated by his death, Iran has long been the area of greatest concern. Should they acquire nuclear weapons, it seems a near certainty they will use them against Israel, and there is nothing to stop them using elements of, say, Hezbollah, to detonate other nuclear devices in various European or American cities.
But even if al Qaeda is devastated by his death, Iran has long been the area of greatest concern. Should they acquire nuclear weapons, it seems a near certainty they will use them against Israel, and there is nothing to stop them using elements of, say, Hezbollah, to detonate other nuclear devices in various European or American cities.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Christianity and Capitalism
This piece, when read in the proper context, makes one of the best evidentiary cases for the superiority of conservatism that I have ever seen. I'll give my reasons for saying this later, but right now I'm going to bed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)