Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Christian Darwinism and the Evolutionary Pathway to Spirit.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Deductive logic teaches us that the acts of reasoning and knowing are inseparable from the act of negating. To understand the law of non-contradiction (a thing cannot be and not be at the same time) is to also understand its reciprocal principle, the law of identity (a thing is what it is and not something else). If we know what cannot be, we also know, in a complementary sense, what is. As the legendary Sherlock Holmes reminds us, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

On the subject of God and Evolution, for example, there are two competing models, but only one of them can possibly be true. In order to provide a meaningful overview, I will use common terms in my abbreviated summary of each model so that the differences relevant to our discussion will become evident:

{A} Traditional Theistic Evolution acknowledges two Divine creative strategies. (1) Through a purposeful evolutionary process, God “forms” man’s material body from the bottom up, and (2) By means of a creative act, God “breathes in” an immaterial soul from the top down, joining spirit with matter.

{B} Contemporary Christian Darwinism recognizes only one Divine creative strategy. Through a natural evolutionary process, God “allows” all of man’s physical, rational, and spiritual traits to emerge from the bottom up and does not, under any circumstances, intervene from the top down, even to infuse a soul into a pre-existent human.

Can we say with apodictic certainty that one of these paradigms is false and, by extension, that the other one is true? If we assume that God exists, and if we assume that rational souls exist, and if we assume universal common descent is a valid theory, then the answer is yes. Reason dictates that a bottom-up, evolutionary process, though it may be responsible for the development of lower living forms, cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, produce a rational soul. In other words, Christian Darwinism is, without question, a false world view. To be rational, then, one must either embrace Traditional Theistic Evolution or reject macro evolution (universal common descent) altogether.

But how do we know that Christian Darwinists are wrong when they assume that matter can evolve into spirit? To begin with, we must take note of the way Christians differentiate between these two realms of existence: material entities, such as bodies, brains, and organs are physical entities and contain parts, which means that they can disintegrate, decay, die, or be transformed into some other kind of matter (or energy, perhaps); spiritual entities such as souls, minds and faculties, are non-physical entities and contain no parts, which means that they cannot disintegrate, die, or be changed into something else.

Clearly, a material body (or brain), which will die and change into another kind of matter, cannot evolve into a spiritual soul (or mind), which is unchangeable, contains no parts, and will live forever. If then, spirit is to be joined with matter, its origins cannot come from matter or from a material process; it must come from another source, that is, it must come directly from God, who creates spirit and implants it in a pre-existing being from the top down.

Even So, Christian Darwinists, without a modicum of embarrassment, hold that matter can, through incremental evolutionary changes, make the leap from dust to eternity. While materialists argue that molecules can come from out of nowhere and then re-arrange themselves to produce organic life; Christian Darwinists argue that molecules can re-arrange themselves into a spiritual soul that contains no molecules. I will leave it to the reader to discern which of these two propositions represents the greater threat to the standards of rational thought.

For a Christian to make sense of evolution, he must, if he accepts universal common descent, and if he accepts the transcendent nature of the soul, envisage some process by which God, at the right stage in the evolutionary process, implanted the soul into a pre-existing human being. The process itself simply cannot make the voyage. For rational theists, no gradual development from lower animal forms to human rational souls can be admitted.

Comments
---eisengate: "God can do as he pleases." So, in your judgment, God can make a square circle, direct an undirected process, and violate his own nature by refusing to love? [matter cannot evolve into spirit] --"That would be a warranted conclusion from a SCIENTIFIC point of view, but this is absolutely unwarranted as a theological assertion." No, it would not be warranted from a scientific point of view. It is warranted from a philosophical/metaphysical/logical point of view. --"Rather it is this: matter evolves, and in some exotic configurations, ADDS a spiritual dimension to its physical vectors." Matter cannot add a spiritual dimension to the physical dimension because it does not have spirit to give. An effect is always preceded by a proportionate cause. ---"That spiritual dimension is eternal, and so when the physical features are annihilated, the spiritual vector remains." You really don't perceive the nonsensical nature of that comment do you? The entire scheme is based on the assumption that matter can give something it doesn't have to give. Or, symbolically: P=> P+S => S, where ‘P’ is ‘physical’ and ‘S’ is “spiritual”. From physical to hybrid to spiritual. At no point does any molecule both exist and not exist." But the problem is that nothing exists in the molecules that can produce the spiritual and, further, by their very nature they cannotStephenB
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Correction: "...at best it could possibly be demonstrated, by passages within the context, that it doesn’t support A. Hence the questions I posed which require that explanation." Should be: "...at best it could possibly be demonstrated, by passages within the context, that it doesn’t support B. Hence the questions I posed which require that explanation."material.infantacy
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Hi Scott, You’re smuggling the rest of your theology into the interpretation of this passage. While I agree that this is necessary in many contexts, it is not appropriate here. I’ll try to explain why. First of all, I am not actively debating the veracity of “soul sleep” as it relates to the rest of scripture. I was responding to Eocene’s rather unwarranted injection of the Endor passage in the context. I’m confident that you will agree with me in general on this point. When arguing two sides of an issue, either A or B, it is not reasonable to assume either A or B in order to establish one or the other. Since the discussion (prior to my entering it) put at issue the veracity of “soul sleep,” it cannot be appropriate to assume that “soul sleep” is true, in order to demonstrate that the Endor passage supports soul sleep. For a case where only A or B can be true (A = “soul sleep”, B = “not soul sleep”) we cannot assume A in order to demonstrate that a scripture passage supports A. Nor can we assume B. We need to let the plain reading of the passage speak for itself. My comments regard that specific passage, and whether it can be said to support A -- not whether A is true in the first place. That’s why my four questions deal with the immediate context, and not the entirety of the whole counsel of God. That’s a bigger debate for a more appropriate venue. In order for 1st Samuel 28 to support the concept of soul sleep, it’s suggested from your argumentation that we need to assume it in the first place. Without that assumption, I’m suggesting that a plain reading of the passage supports B. It only supports A if we assume A, from what I’m reading in your responses. You seem to be saying that since we should know that “soul sleep” is true, the Endor passage cannot refute it. However without making that initial assumption, the plain reading of the passage supports “not soul sleep.” So in a debate to decide (A or B), “soul sleep” or “not soul sleep”, the Endor passage taken on its own, more reasonably supports B, and not A, if we smuggle in no assumptions. Therefore it is not reasonable to use it as evidence in support of A. That was the vein which my original response to Eocene traveled in. As a matter of fact, when any (A or B) is on the table as a matter of debate, whether “soul sleep” or no, “Jesus is deity” or no, “Trinity” or no, “bodily resurrection” or no, each passage must stand essentially on its own to demonstrate that it supports A or that it supports B, since any assumption of one or the other is question begging. At least, every passage used to support one or the other, or to undermine one or the other, must be interpreted -- wherever possible -- from the context in which it is given. Otherwise the hermeneutics are compromised by the imposition of an a priori theology. In summary, we could shift gears and start a discussion as to whether each passage of scripture, taken on its own merits, better supports A or B. I might be up for that at another time on another thread. (I’m familiar with the theology I’m up against here; I have dealt with it before, and I disagree with it on practically every point). However here I was addressing Eocene’s interjection of the Endor passage as support for soul sleep when it clearly does not, taken on its own merits -- when one doesn’t smuggle in the conclusion to make the point. I understand that if one reaches the conclusion that “soul sleep” is true, then one has no choice but to impose an alternate interpretation on the plain reading of the text of 1st Samuel 28. Such might even be warranted in those circumstances. However it’s a contentious point, and the Endor passage on its own cannot support the contention that every aspect of consciousness perishes with the body. Personally I have reached the conclusion that B is true; and the Endor passage supports that contention. Without assuming A in the first place, it cannot be used as evidence against B; at best it could possibly be demonstrated, by passages within the context, that it doesn’t support A. Hence the questions I posed which require that explanation. m.i. P.S. In regards to your 5.2.1.1.6, the prophecy did not number the sons, so cannot be false in that regard. IOW, the prophecy did not number nor name the sons that would perish with Saul, therefore it cannot be regarded as inaccurate regarding the number of dead sons or their identities. This was a foretelling inexplicable to the forces of darkenss. Demons have no such knowledge. That Saul could get no answer from God, and that he resorted to illegal means to try and do so, fits with the character of Saul, and helps cement our understanding of him. This is entirely consistent with the pattern established by him previously. Moreover, that God would choose, at the behest of Saul, to give him no advantage, but rather to reveal to him his own death, is an entirely appropriate irony given the context.
Why were fortunetellers called that if they never predicted the future? The Bible speaks of the evil of using ‘uncanny power.’ Apparently such power existed. How did the demon in Acts make money for the girl’s masters, if not by making predictions?
One needn’t see the future in order to “foretell” it here and there. One just needs an accuracy which results in more hits than misses. In my view, making a “prediction” is a matter of an educated guess -- it may or may not pan out. Making a prophecy, or foretelling the future, is not a matter of guess work; it’s 100% or nothing on that one. Demons are ancient and awful beings with potentially terrible intellects. It takes little imagination to suppose how a being such as this, who likely possesses uncanny insight into human behavior, as well as the ability to hear and see things that most any human would be unable to, and unsuspecting of, could give someone the advantage -- and an apparent supernatural one. There’s no reason to assume that a demon need see the future in order to predict it with apparent supernatural ability, in many situations, not the least of which would revolve directly around human business dealings and affairs. They’re supernatural creatures with frightening capabilities -- but I doubt seriously that any one of them has access to that which only God could know. Fortune telling is not prophecy, not in the divine sense. I see no reason to presume that what demons whisper to their captives has anything to do with what God reveals to prophets, priests, and kings.material.infantacy
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
BTW, the prophecy of the so-called "Samuel" was false. Saul's sons Armoni, Ishbosheth, and Mephibosheth did not die the next day. Saul also notes in the account that God had refused to answer him by any means. If Samuel were a disembodied spirit, in contradiction to the scriptures, from where did the answer he gave Saul come from? It's evident that God had no message for Saul.ScottAndrews2
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
m.i. Why were fortunetellers called that if they never predicted the future? The Bible speaks of the evil of using 'uncanny power.' Apparently such power existed. How did the demon in Acts make money for the girl's masters, if not by making predictions? Wasn't Samuel a faithful man, obedient to God's command not not consult spirit mediums? So why would Samuel agree to be summoned? Or did the devil have power over Samuel to make him appear? Or did God participate in what he had explicitly condemned? Such an interpretation requires one of the above to be true. And again, you must reconcile what Solomon, whose knowledge came from God, said about death. If Samuel was a spirit to be summoned, then what Solomon wrote cannot possibly be correct. "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing." Fear of the spirits of the dead was a pagan belief. Spirit mediums working with demons acted to validate it by creating apparitions and speaking what only the dead could know. (That goes on to this day.) Psalm 146:4 "His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish." The word for "spirit" is ruach, or "breath." If Samuel knew nothing and his thoughts had perished, how did he speak to Saul? If Samuel had returned to the dust as Adam did, how did he speak to Saul? If Saul was asleep as Lazarus was while he was dead, how did he speak to Saul? To understand 1st Samuel 28 that way places it in contradiction with direct statements regarding the state of death, and has both God and Samuel acting in violation of God's commandment. Look up Soul, Immortality, or Augustine in the New Catholic Encylopedia. Each refers to the influence of Plato and Aristotle. Why should men who had access to the word of God seek truth from pagan philosophers? It is an insult to God's inspiration of the scriptures for such men to be mentioned in the same breath. Paul counseled to watch out for the world's empty philosophy. It's like having access to a grocery store and choosing to pick through the garbage bin outside. What's more, the formulation of such doctrines coincides with a time when a warmongering secular ruler had assumed control of Christianity and began commanding Christians to observe pagan festivals. In other words, by the time this doctrine came about the church had fully apostasized. Within a short time what remained was no longer recognizable as the teaching of Jesus. Compare this to the parable at Matthew 13, in which Jesus foretold this:
The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’“‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
ScottAndrews2
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Footnote: The assumption that the prophecy foretold the death of Saul's line was clearly mine, and incorrect. The text does not seem to suggest it.material.infantacy
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Hi SA, actually the prophecy was accurate, as the number of Saul's sons is unspecified. So the questions remain: Why is the figure identified as Samuel in the text? Why does Saul recognize the figure as Samuel? Where does the plot to deceive Saul play itself out? Who other than a prophet could have prophesied the death of Israel's king and his sons? You may believe that there is no consciousness after death, but you can't use 1st Samuel 28 to show it. It appears to demonstrate the opposite. To cite your belief that the rest of scripture rules it out, is begging the question in this case, because that is the point under contention. There's nothing in the context of this passage to indicate that anything else is going on, other than Saul speaking to the departed Samuel. The burden is on you to show how a figure that looked like, talked like, and prophesied like Samuel appeared to, and was recognized by Saul as Samuel -- all while the text of the passage clearly named it Samuel. Meanwhile, absent from the text is any indication of a deceptive intent, or a plot to deceive Saul carried out in the pages of the book. I'm not saying there's no room to question said identity, but clearly the dogmatic declaration that the figure identified as Samuel was definitely demonic is inappropriate, to say the least. As for the soothsaying demon in Acts, there's no mention of its abilities other than to say that it made the girl's masters some money. That's a far cry from prophesying the day of death for Saul and his sons. m.i.material.infantacy
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
@StephenB,
I am not powerless to refute the point, but I am powerless to force anyone to acknowledge the refutation. Even the epiphenomenlaists understand that matter cannot become spirit. That is why, when they suggest that matter can produce mind, they are careful to point out that the evolved “mind” as they define it, remains grounded in matter.
God can do as he pleases. Think about what you are saying. Water can become wine, spirit can become flesh (the incarnation), but, per your God, matter cannot become spirit. Why? Oh, because of the consensus of epiphenomenalists? Seriously? If you took that kind of counsel at all seriously, you would hold the theism that you do! The very restriction you point to here discredits all manner of theological commitments you maintain. As to "forcing" someone to accept your refutation, that misunderstands the basis for reconciliation. Hawking was not "forced" to concede to Susskind in some coercive way. Neither did Hawking just decide he later liked the cut of Susskind's arguments, and "capitulated" to the arguments themselves. Hawking shares a method for reconciliation with Susskind that theologians do not and cannot have -- if they had this, it would be wallowing as theology, but would be science! Hawking embraces a method and an epistemology that enables his own views (or views of others) to be falsified and discredited in an objective way -- it's obligatory on him per his epistemology even though its non-coercive or "forcing". Theology isn't like that. There is no experiment or intersubjective test that we could submit to as a method of reconciliation. Your refutation is condemned to always and ever be "in the eye of the beholder". There is no reconciliation through a shared arbitration practice. That's the poverty of theology as opposed to science. If some theologian abandons the doctrine of hell (or penal substitutionary atonement, or supralapsarian predistination, or....), it is not because the results of a world discriminating test have provide an objective basis for abandoning it. If there were such a test, he'd be doing science!
One either accepts the extravagant claims of Darwin’s mechanism or one does not. According to that paradigm, evolution produced larger and larger brains until human intelligence became a fact. In other words, for Christians who accept Darwin’s scheme, the mechanism was responsible for the origin of the human mind.
Right.
This is what I understand Francis Collins to mean, for example, when he writes, “Most remarkably, God intentionally chose this same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with him. He also knew that these creatures would ultimately choose to disobey the moral law.” (P 201, The Language of God). But as I have indicated, an immaterial mind cannot emerge from matter.
That would be a warranted conclusion from a SCIENTIFIC point of view, but this is absolutely unwarranted as a theological assertion. Have you heard a Hindu friend tell about reincarnation? Scientifically, we have no warrant for such a conclusion. Theologically, that's as true as "I go to heaven when I die". Anything goes. Theologically, you have no grounds for this assertion. If we're talking theology, I will say "An immaterial mind CAN emerge from matter, and it happens all the time", as a devil's advocate. Now what? You are stalemated. My theological intuition is just as impervious to assault as yours is. So you can "indicate" it, but if you are offering this as theology, it's trivially counter-indicated just by my say-so, my intuition. That's the bummer of indulging in theology -- there is no adjudication, no intersubjectivity, ever, not possibly. All disagreements are permanent stalemates, stalemates invulnerable to intersubjective reconciliation. If you are speaking scientifically, of course, I agree there is no basis for concluding that an immaterial mind can emerge from matter, if for no other reason than the terms are incoherent. "Immaterial mind" is not a meaningful concept for science. Science traffics in natural explanations for natural phenomena.
It should be evident that molecules re-arranging themselves cannot evolve into something that contains no molecules, just as Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist.
That's not the theological intuition you are working against, here. Rather it is this: matter evolves, and in some exotic configurations, ADDS a spiritual dimension to its physical vectors. That spiritual dimension is eternal, and so when the physical features are annihilated, the spiritual vector remains. Or, symbolically: P=> P+S => S, where 'P' is 'physical' and 'S' is "spiritual". From physical to hybrid to spiritual. At no point does any molecule both exist and not exist. We're talking theology and metaphysics here, so anything goes. My contrived theological intuitions can't beat up yours, but yours are just as impotent as mine. Neither intuition can even lean on the other if the owners of those intuitions don't wish it to be so. And there is no "court of investigation" that can arbitrate this for us, either.
If that point isn’t clear, then reflect on the fact that spirit does not depend on matter for its existence and cannot, therefore derive from matter from that same reason. The mind does depend on the brain for its operation (while united to a body), but not for its existence.
I imagine it's no different than God "endowing" a human fetus or baby with a supernatural soul. Instead of being "special creation", of the overt and direct style that many creationists of so fond of, it's evolutionary, developmental, incrremental. If God can just "infuse" human flesh with a spiritual soul in one discrete act -- "poof!" -- he can infuse spirit at the atomic level as incrementally and arbitrarily as he likes. You are giving signs here that you think theology is something rigorous like science. It's not. Water can't become wine by the very same principles you are bringing to bear here, and yet, do you believe in the miracle at Cana? Just be consistent, one way or another. If we are goofing off in the romper room of theology, let's do that, but let's not get confused we are liability to evidence or causality or "best inferences" that depend on real-world grounding and science. Don't steal those concepts, because they are foreign to theology, and divide by zero operations as theology. If we want to discuss from the basis of scientific epistemology, then fine, but the conversation is radically reshaped. There is no God or spirit or soul or immaterial mind in evidence to even CONSIDER if we are thinking in ways that are accountable to empirical testing and objective validation.
Now, it may be the case that Collins, Miller et al would acknowledge that God “breathed in” a “soul” from the top down, but they seem to forget, if they ever knew it, that the soul consists of an immaterial mind and an immaterial will. If the soul was created directly, then so was the mind, which means, of course, that it didn’t emerge.
That is not entailed, theology. Entailment in theology is reduced to logical entailments, implications necessary just to avoid logical contradictions. There's no logical contradiction in the idea that the soul emerges, incrementally. If it can be "created by poof" and invested in human flesh in a discrete fashion by God, it can "grown in the flesh", incrementally. God's ways are mysterious, and it is a mighty God we serve, indeed, remember? Collins, by they way does not claim anything like {B}. He believes the mind evolves naturally, but the soul is invested miraculously, not as part of evolution. Don't ask me for the mechanics, or him -- that's not something superstitious theology can be bothered with. You're not going to deign to explain to me how water turns to wine, either. These are all difficulties theology is well-designed to escape. It's just notional, and not accountable to any evidence or testable models, or any objective performance demands at all. So when you say "Soul can't emerge from matter", you are just waving your hands. You are right to say that Collins is also waving his hands when he supposes the soul is miraculously invested in an evolve human chassis, but so what? That's part and parcel of theology, as your only theology will flamboyantly demonstrate.
So, they cannot have it both ways, that is, they cannot attribute the origin of the mind to God’s direct intervention from the top down when they are giving lip service to the soul and then turn around and attribute it to the indirect process of evolution from the bottom up.
In theology, you can have it both ways. That's what theology provides to humans, a much desired means of having things like this both ways. A putative Christian Darwinist can just say "the restrictions you impose here do not apply, and the spiritual soul CAN emerge as a by-product of biological evolution". And you're completely stymied. If you don't think you are, then I will ask you how you "have it both ways" by understanding God to be "fully three" and "fully one" at one and the same time. If you can untangle the mysteries of the Trinity, then I have about three thousand other, similar question where Christian theology has its cake and eats it, too. It's rank hypocrisy to think Collins should be held to some rational standard you flagrantly flaunt and revile yourself for your own views.
It isn’t an ad populum argument, it is simply a definition: A rational soul, as understood by Christians is (1) the intellect or mind, which is power to reason, understand, and argue, (2) the will, which is the power to choose and love and (3) the aesthetic sensibility, by which we appreciate beauty. To understand the meaning of rational soul, and the fact that it is immortal, is to understand the role of an immaterial, immortal mind, which is to understand that it must be the result of a direct creative act.
That's just as problematic, then, if not more. It's just a definition, which means it's trivial. Reality isn't bound by your (or my) definitions. So the Christian Darwinist will just argue that whatever changes need to be made to the definition of 'soul' be made to bring it into line with (theological) reality, which has the soul incrementally developing as a spiritual vector on some configurations of physical matter. QED. Your definitions aren't even a speed bump -- just change them to fit the more compelling reality (as the Christian Darwinist sees it). Definitions serve our goals, not the other way around, remember. They are just conceptual tools.
Once he understands that a material processes cannot produce a mind, and why, he will rethink his position if he is a reasonable person.
There's no reason to accept that restriction, theologically (or scientifically, as it happens). Theologically, anything goes, God's ways are mysterious and he's omnipotent, etc. Scientifically speaking, this restriction would be the intrusion of superstitious thinking.
Humans are, indeed, a composite of body and soul. It does not follow, however, that a body can evolve into a soul.
That's not the question. Your position is a different one, one that burdens you: the body CANNOT evolve into having a soul. How would you propose to establish this impossibility? Since we're operating in the theological arena, you can't. There's no way to prosecute or demonstrate such a restriction. It doesn't imply any logical contradictions. So it's fair game for anyone else who fancies such an idea to suppose that really is how it works. After all, you believe (ostensibly) that a woman was healed by just touching Jesus' cloak and believing that would provide healing, and that Jesus turned water into wine. Should I ask you where it "follows", that water can be turned into wine? How would you answer that one? If it's not clear, this is all just pedagogy towards the understanding that you are in an impotent position, and have no more grounds to have your theological constraints assented to than any one else's or the listeners own peculiar theological intuitions, no matter how capricious or esoteric they may be. You are engaging in the gratuitous theft of stolen concepts from science and real world investigations. Nothing "follows" except for logical consistency in theology. "cannot" is a stolen concept from the real world that has no grounding in your theology. "Can" and "Cannot" are undefined concepts in theology. The best you can do is say "A=~A" is problematic (which it is just on formal logical terms).
A cluster of molecules cannot morph into something that contains no molecules. It can only change into another combination of molecules. I am hoping that you will come to see that.
In the real world, scientifically, I certainly agree we have no warrant for supposing a soul gets attached to a human in any way, even if we suppose for now that "soul" is a meaningful concept in that domain. But you are using "can" and "cannot" -- terms grounded in real world experience and scientific epistemology -- in a completely foreign domain: theology. What grounds "can" and "cannot" in theology? I have no problem with ruling out self-contradiction and logical incoherence, but that is not at issue with "can" in the theological view of molecules and spirit. There is no grounding for "can" and "cannot", theologically, so far as I'm aware. It's a concept stolen from the real world of experience and nature that theologians invoke for polemic reasons, but reasons that have no internal semantic ground. Think about how we ground "can" in the real world. We test, try, experiment, review results, build models, make predictions, break models, fail and succeed at various predictions. This provides the semantic ground for "can", for what is plausible, for what causes and capabilities and restrictions apply. Theology can't get purchase on any of that. If it shared any of that, it would cease to be theology, and become science. As it is, there are no experiments to try, no way to test models, no predictions entailed from any models we can test. "Can" and "cannot" are just so much bluster as theological terms, words that have good equity in real-world domains that we hope to pass off as meaningful and persuasive when used theologically, hoping no one will notice.eigenstate
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
material.infancy, The prophecy was not correct. The apparition stated that all of Saul's sons would die. They did not. Did God provide a false prophecy? If God took some spirit from a person such as Samuel and transferred to some other paradise, by what means could a medium force it to appear? If these were good people who died and whose "spirits" were now somewhere else, how could spirit mediums just yank any of them back whenever they felt like? When God wanted to communicate with a man, he sent a prophet. Do we suppose that in this Saul "forced" an answer from God by going to a spirit medium and yanking Samuel back from whatever paradise he was in? God detested such mediums. He did not communicate through them. The immortality of the soul was a pagan teaching. It was and is a common trick for wicked spirits to further this by pretending to be dead people and sharing information only someone else could know. How do they foretell the future? I don't know, but they can. In Acts Paul expelled a demon who did just that. (Don't forget, the prophecy wasn't even entirely true.) The above shows why God detested such activities. They brought people into contact with demons. Interesting that the only reference to Samuel or any other man living in spirit after death was in this context. And, on top of all of that, to understand this as Samuel having been summoned to prophesy on behalf of God plainly contradicts the rest of the scriptures. Solomon said that dead were aware of nothing and had no knowledge. Psalms says they have no thoughts. You cannot reconcile the two. If we believe the Bible to be a collection of fables, fine. But if we believe it to be the word of God then we cannot interpret 1st Samuel 28 in a way that directly contradicts clear statements, taken in context, about what happens when we die. Especially not when we have several other good reasons not to understand the verse that way. Why would a demon share this information with Saul? Who knows? As evidenced elsewhere in the scriptures, sometimes they do that. I don't need to understand everything they do to know what they are.ScottAndrews2
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Scripture makes clear who is present in 1st Samuel 28, and that includes Samuel -- he even prophesies the death of Saul and his sons on Mt. Gilboa the following day. If there is scripture that identifies the person in that passage as anyone other than Samuel, I'd appreciate a reference. Your questioning of Mosaic law in the face of what you perceive would be "wonderful contacting" is exactly the reason for the Mosaic law in the first place. It's illegal to contact the dead because you're not supposed to do it. Everything in that passage suggests the players are exactly as the author reveals. I don't know of any explicit references from the Word itself which deny the identity of Samuel, for the person identified therein as Samuel, or confirm the identity of another entity, for the person of Samuel in 1st Samuel 28. While there may be some room to argue a question of identity therein, there's no apparent justification for a dogmatic pronouncement of an interpretation extrinsic to the text. Clearly the figure is identified and recognized as Samuel. Here are some questions that would need to be answered if we're to suppose an alternate identity of the figure called Samuel. 1) Why does the author identify the figure as Samuel? It would have made more sense to identify it as "the spirit in the image of Samuel," or "the figure appearing as Samuel," or some such if the reader was meant to question identity. 2) Why does Saul recognize the figure as Samuel? Saul knew him better than most, and would not have been easily fooled. 3) Where does the plan to deceive Saul play out? If there was a reason or plan to deceive Saul with an illusory apparition of Samuel, it is not revealed in the text. 4) How can an entity other than a prophet of God prophesy the death of Saul, and his three sons? The death of anyone, especially that of the king of Israel and his line, would be only for God to know and reveal. No demonic entity would have access to such a vision.material.infantacy
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews2: "The Bible indicates that Christians could be resurrected as spirits rather than in physical bodies. This does not imply that they already were such before death." ==== Interesting point. If the Soul floats off immediately after death no matter who or what it is, then this would make the teaching of the Resusrrection Annulled.Eocene
November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT
So when The witch of Endor channeled dead Prophet Samuel at unfaithful anoited King Saul's request, was that really the Soul of the Prophet Samuel ??? If so, then why would the Mosaic Law forbid such wonderful contacting with the dead and why would this be repeated in the New Testament to be forbidden to Christians for contacting spirit mediums ??? Shouldn't christians be allowed to contact and speak to their dead relatives they loved in this life by obtaining the services of a Spirit Medium ??? Also, if all animals, birds, fish, reptiles, insects have Souls, is it possible that Hinduism has it right ???Eocene
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT
This seems to me perfectly immune from any assault from StephenB, in precisely the same way his intuitions are invulnerable to any cross examinations I, as a Christian Darwinist (whatever that is) might offer. Ignoring the bad caricatures of theology for a moment: StephenB's main "assault" here is to point out that if a person is seeking to reconcile God with Darwinism, this is going to involve sacrificing some metaphysical/philosophical commitments of Darwinism. What you outline here is a gesture in the direction of that sacrifice - it's just StephenB's {A}. And StephenB cannot complain, because to do so is to expose himself as a hypocrite. He lives a theological house of the most fragile and thin glass, himself, so he can’t be throwing stones. This is tremendous nonsense. Plenty of theologians and philosophers interact with each other, making points about the consistency of their ideas, what those ideas entail, incoherence that may result, etc. This applies to atheist philosophers too, who also at times simply fall back on 'brute fact' or denying causality or otherwise. In this case, StephenB is pressing them to speak more about how these things take place in a no-intervention, no-guidance, bottom-up manner. Your response is to say, basically, 'A TE doesn't have to do that!' But that's right. It's called embracing {A} in Stephen's list. I don’t recall a single instance of a Christian who accepted the theory of evolution make a claim like {B}. Not saying it doesn’t or can’t happen, it’s just totally foreign to my experience. I gave one example of the sort of standard of Darwinism that was given at Biologos' site. The further complaint about Biologos largely comes in the form of silence upon pressing. If a person just says 'God and Darwinism are compatible' then refuses to specify how the two interact, there's a problem. Godless evolution cannot identify purpose behind what’s regarded as “randomness’, by definition; if you can identify purpose, plan or pattern, it ain’t random. A theistic evolutionist understands that if God is there behind the curtain, neither the atheist or the theist could identify such based our current science. Except that "Godless evolution" is positively defined. It's not "we are unable to identify if evolution is directed". It's "evolution is not guided or directed by God in any way, in whole or in part". It's the difference between arguing that science is incapable of discerning the presence or lack of teleology in nature, and the assertion that the teleology is not there. Likewise, 'identifying it based on current science' is not necessary. A philosophical or metaphysical commitment that interprets the science - and naturalism/atheism is just another form of 'theological' interpretation on this front - would be fine. No need to say the inference is scientific. Well, behold the splendor of theology, huh? No, that's your blunder. You're saying that Christianity is contentless to the point where you can call shinto, without modification, Christianity. I think plenty of atheists would regard that as self-evidently wrong, and you haven't backed this up except to repeat over and over 'if it's theology you can say whatever you like', despite mountains of evidence of theologians and philosophers examining and comparing their claims, arguing in earnest, abandoning positions that were shown to be incoherent, etc. Your example with Hawking is uneven: you say Hawking and Susskind "agreed on the method of resolving their dispute". But plenty of theists and philosophers share those methods. Sometimes they're empirical - 'Find Christ's body and Christianity is false'. Other times they're based on logic and reasoning - 'Show this philosophical claim is incoherent and it will be abandoned'. StephenB can understand right now that he is easily stalemated on this front, Not at all, though it's common for atheists to think they've stalemated someone, just as it's common for creationists to think they can disprove evolution in 5 minutes. They're usually equally "right". Like it or not, not only does the thrust of StephenB's post make it through, but you've already copped to it. Your big defense here is to claim that no theists take route {B}, and that they all take route {A}. But {A} is exactly what StephenB thinks they should take anyway. And there's plenty of reason to suspect that {B} is either taken, or implied by, the sort of (non)-statements we often, though not always, see coming out of Biologos. So in the end, you agree: {B} has nothing going for it. {A} does. Which is encouraging - even atheists can see StephenB's point.nullasalus
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
--"Moses and Elijah were a vision. How did the apostles recognize them? Had they seen photos of them?" According to the Bible, Moses and Elijah "appeared" to Jesus and spoke with him at length. How did the apostles know whot they were? Perhaps Jesus called them by name. There is nothing there to suggest that it was a mere "vision." If, indeed, they did appear, then it should be evident that their souls were alive and well.StephenB
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
---eigenstate: “It’s quite literally “anything goes”, once you take that first leap in embracing belief in such a God, and the attendant beliefs in supernatural and physical substance which this god supervises in a plenipotentiary way.” I think nullasalus has done a good job refuting that point, so I will not belabor it. . ---“A Christian can say: The evolved human mind becomes an eternal soul at conception, at the commencement of electrical activity in the brain, or at birth. You are powerless to resist this assertion, as your resistance cannot be any more forceful or “liable to reconcilation” than the assertion you’ve just been given." I am not powerless to refute the point, but I am powerless to force anyone to acknowledge the refutation. Even the epiphenomenlaists understand that matter cannot become spirit. That is why, when they suggest that matter can produce mind, they are careful to point out that the evolved “mind” as they define it, remains grounded in matter. ___”Can you point me to a link to one of these “Christian Darwinists” you speak of, making the claims you allege? I’d appreciate being able to hear it from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.” One either accepts the extravagant claims of Darwin’s mechanism or one does not. According to that paradigm, evolution produced larger and larger brains until human intelligence became a fact. In other words, for Christians who accept Darwin’s scheme, the mechanism was responsible for the origin of the human mind. This is what I understand Francis Collins to mean, for example, when he writes, “Most remarkably, God intentionally chose this same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with him. He also knew that these creatures would ultimately choose to disobey the moral law.” (P 201, The Language of God). But as I have indicated, an immaterial mind cannot emerge from matter. It should be evident that molecules re-arranging themselves cannot evolve into something that contains no molecules, just as Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist. If that point isn’t clear, then reflect on the fact that spirit does not depend on matter for its existence and cannot, therefore derive from matter from that same reason. The mind does depend on the brain for its operation (while united to a body), but not for its existence. Now, it may be the case that Collins, Miller et al would acknowledge that God “breathed in” a “soul” from the top down, but they seem to forget, if they ever knew it, that the soul consists of an immaterial mind and an immaterial will. If the soul was created directly, then so was the mind, which means, of course, that it didn't emerge. So, they cannot have it both ways, that is, they cannot attribute the origin of the mind to God’s direct intervention from the top down when they are giving lip service to the soul and then turn around and attribute it to the indirect process of evolution from the bottom up. ---“If you say “as commonly understood”, you are simply pushing a fallacious appeal to ad populum arguments. Theologic truth is not normative per consensus or popularity.” It isn’t an ad populum argument, it is simply a definition: A rational soul, as understood by Christians is (1) the intellect or mind, which is power to reason, understand, and argue, (2) the will, which is the power to choose and love and (3) the aesthetic sensibility, by which we appreciate beauty. To understand the meaning of rational soul, and the fact that it is immortal, is to understand the role of an immaterial, immortal mind, which is to understand that it must be the result of a direct creative act. --“The “Christian Darwinist” says the material mind for humans has a supernatural and eternal vector. It sounds bogus to me, too, so I empathize with the reaction, but I am not embracing competing theologies that are just as indefensible and superstitious as I understand you to have embraced. Given the ground you are standing on, I can’t see that you have anything that will even slightly nudge the Christian Darwinist’s claim, let alone knock it over.” Once he understands that a material processes cannot produce a mind, and why, he will rethink his position if he is a reasonable person. ---“But logic doesn’t and can’t corral that. There’s no logical inconsistency in supposing that humans are “hybrids”, where their human biology is a combination of flesh and spirit. The death of the flesh leaves the spirit only, and it the person is no longer a “hybrid” but just a spirit. Humans are, indeed, a composite of body and soul. It does not follow, however, that a body can evolve into a soul. A cluster of molecules cannot morph into something that contains no molecules. It can only change into another combination of molecules. I am hoping that you will come to see that. ---Logic without falsification doesn’t get you very far. This is the conceit of rational intuitionists, and the triumph of scientific epistemology. The history of philosophy is replete with the failures of rational intuition as a self-standing heuristic. Intuition is a crucial and powerful driver for human thought and inquiry, but ‘logic on its own’ only produces trivial truths and tautologies. It doesn’t inform or reveal anything about the real world around us, unless and until it actual gets applied to experience and tests in that real world." Rationalism and intuitionism are not synonymous with reason and logic. No valid logical argument has ever been refuted because no logical argument can be refuted. Jupiter cannot exist and not exist at the same time. That argument is unassailable. Evidence does not inform reason’s rules; reason’s rules inform evidence. It is those same rules (law of non-contradiction, law of causality etc.) by which we interpret evidence reasonably. New evidence does not change those old rules because those rules are impervious to change. If they could be changed, they would be a useless standard for discerning truth from error. By contrast, the findings of science are always provisional. That is why the former rules the latter. Error changes. Truth doesn’tStephenB
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
@nullasalus
Likewise, I think that Stephen’s point is that once you start attributing some ‘supernatural vector’ to matter, then matter is something other than what materialists take it to be, insofar as that ‘vector’ is denied. Your move here seems a little like suggesting that cartesian dualists are actually materialists. It just so happens that they believe there’s a kind of matter that is without extension and is the subject of experiences.
Sure, why not? I'm not defending any reified "Christian Darwinism", as I said, I don't even recognize that as a practical label. But that's not important. Since StephenB is trafficking in theology, we can just concoct fanciful ideas as we go, and it's all good, StephenB is stalemated, because he's approaching this question in a non-probative way. His mode of inquiry and reconciliation do not actual incorporate real methods for reconciliation or inquiry. It's all just unaccountable conjecture, so my saying (wearing my hypothetical Christian Darwinist Goggles™ for a moment) "supernatural properties and eternality are actually just properties of some configurations of physical matter". This seems to me perfectly immune from any assault from StephenB, in precisely the same way his intuitions are invulnerable to any cross examinations I, as a Christian Darwinist (whatever that is) might offer. Now I have a "unified" model that evolves supernatural and eternal properties out of exotic configurations of physical matter. Is God an awesome God, or what? StephenB's demands for reconciliations just plink harmlessly off the armor of my theology, because I have this inner intuition that this is How Reality Really Is, and since this is theology and not science, I'm untouchable by his demands, and cannot be discredited by any evidence. And StephenB cannot complain, because to do so is to expose himself as a hypocrite. He lives a theological house of the most fragile and thin glass, himself, so he can't be throwing stones.
Are you asking for an example of TEs committing to {B}?
Yes, I've been an atheist for going on six years now, but I read, wrote and interacted heavily in theistic evolutionist circles for many years prior to that. I don't recall a single instance of a Christian who accepted the theory of evolution make a claim like {B}. Not saying it doesn't or can't happen, it's just totally foreign to my experience.
If so, the problem is that many TEs tend to obfuscate on this point. They argue that God and orthodox Christianity is entirely compatible with Darwinism, but when it’s pointed out that Darwinism is wrapped up with the claim that evolution is unguided, impersonal and undirected their response is not to say either ‘Then Darwinism is wrong – evolution has a spiritual vector’ or ‘Your definition of Darwinism is wrong – it does not require that evolution be unguided, impersonal or undirected’. It’s to generally stay pretty damn quiet, and then host “friendly atheists” arguing that the only way God can be reconciled with Darwinism is by God creating so many multiverses that, purely by chance, something human-like springs up.
Well, that strikes me as quite earnest, rather than obfuscation. "Godless evolution", of the form I think is most compelling on the evidence, indeed does not identify any Gods behind the scenes manipulating things (obviously). But if such a God DID exist and were operating "behind the veil", as it were, then "Godless evolution" would be mistaken in that regard, but it would remain perfectly unchanged, and as performative as it is now. Godless evolution cannot identify purpose behind what's regarded as "randomness', by definition; if you can identify purpose, plan or pattern, it ain't random. A theistic evolutionist understands that if God is there behind the curtain, neither the atheist or the theist could identify such based our current science. So it's magical thinking (and that's a blunder, there, I say), but it's not the least bit in conflict with "Godless evolution". A theistic evolutionist and I would not diverge even one little bit in our emprical review of mutations, or adaptations, or whatever. She sees "God behind the curtain" in a non-scientific way and I do not. But the science is a 100% overlap. And on this question, of God "operating behind the veil", there is no conflict whatsoever in that with Christian orthodox doctrine.
No, it’s not. This would mean that shintoism is Christianity, despite shinto making zero mention of Christ. If you think that, I suggest the problem is with your own definition and view of Christianity.
Well, behold the splendor of theology, huh? This is downside of theology that compensates for the now-you-can-believe-whatever-you-find-gratifying-or-otherwise-appealing upside. You can't contain it, or demand that it be reconciled -- "reconciled" is a divide-by-zero in theology. It's an undefined operation. So, while I understand the frustration of someone bring some variation of Shintoism to the table and advancing that as "true Christianity" (and on the radio today I heard some author of a recent book about "Where Oprah Has Taken Us" delivering his lamentations of how Oprah Winfrey is doing precisely this with Christianity: importing a completely foreign theology into Christian terms and concepts to come up with something totally... different), what can you do? I do know what you can do. You can argue and protest and try to shame perceived heretics and ban them from your forums or whatnot, but this is all just polemics and power. There is nothing you can do to adopt a method of objective adjudication, in, say the way Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking agreed on the method for resolving a dispute. Twenty eight years after the dispute erupted between Susskind and Hawking, empirical evidence obtained that settled the question in Susskind's favor. Hawking didn't get shamed or hectored into submission, or otherwise coerced as a political matter. He just shared an epistemic framework with Susskind that incorporated methods for the crucial things StephenB can't touch -- inquiry and reconciliation. So, you're pretty much stuck if you're indulging in theology. Another dude's Shintoism is just as legit as your finely honed supralapsarian reformed theology (or whatever the particulars you happen to adopt -- don't know, don't care to know). It's just as Christian in a technical sense, because in a technical sense, the semantics are just made up and provisional from beginning to end anyway.
It’s a concept from philosophy and logic. And I think a reasonable reply StephenB could give here is that, fine – since you’re basically saying that Christian Darwinists can reconcile evolution with Christianity by way of occasionalism, all you have to do is show me where they say they commit to embracing occasionalism.
No interest in or need for that. As I said above, I don't even recognize the term "Christian Darwinist", and as best I can tell, it's just a strawman StephenB is making up for the purposes of this post. But it doesn't matter. The important point is that StephenB can imagine all kinds of various competing theologies with which he disagrees theologically, and which he understands do not "reconcile" with his own, but because he's operating on a theological playing field, it's all just "play money", as it were, anyway. It doesn't help anything to find an instance of this kind of occasionalism -- I was just making that up on the fly as pedagogy (I am not a subscriber to {B}). StephenB can understand right now that he is easily stalemated on this front, just by some random atheist dude thinking off the top of his head on teh intertube metas. Knowing that, there's no gain in even finding such an advocate. Stalemates can be synthesized "on demand" for anything StephenB supposes should be reconciled. I point out, in conclusion, that as frustrating as that may be for StephenB, is still a good deal for him. It's a necessary evil, because it protects StephenB's own particular intuitions, too. If "reconciling" had any force as a theological concept, like it does as a scientific concept, his beloved intuitions would be hopelessly discredited, left in tatters scattered about the floor. Live by theology, die by theology, I guess the paraphrase would go. If you choose to protect your intuitions with theology, you're protected, but impotent. You can't touch anyone else's theology either, unless they choose to adopt the intuitions you are advocating for.eigenstate
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
So a “Christian Darwinist” (I still don’t know what an example of this would be) says “supernatural soul substance supervenes on the physical structure of a human mind”. Here's the problem: they would have to, at a minimum, say that. This isn't being said. Now, once they say that, we can start examining their philosophical, metaphysical and theological reasons for saying as much, see if there are logical contradictions, see what reasoning they offer. But if they refuse to say even that, we have a problem. And that's why I take StephenB to be differentiating between TEs of A-type and B-type. It supposes that God is intervening supernatural “behind the veil of quantum randomness”. Magic – an agent manipulating the natural world by means of supernatural powers. What makes the powers supernatural? I would think you would define "magic" and "supernatural" to be the same thing, in which case including the word in the definition seems problematic. But God behind the veil of randomness is not profane in scientific terms. It provides telic “steering” without having to change or overturn even the slightest bit of empirical evidence and scientific knowledge we have. You’re right to say that we may be unable (in conceivable cases, like Last Tuesdayism) to identify a large and direct mode of intervention by God, but even so, SOME acts of intervention, and particularly those imagined by many traditional Christians are events that completely negate the “lawness” of physical law, and render it notional at best. I'm pointing out that the claim most TEs would hold regarding science does not reply on God behind held behind any "veil of randomness". Bring in as direct and as obvious an act of God as you like, and you still have science as incapable of determining that this was an act of God, or - often forgotten - not an act of God. You say that some Christian miracles "completely negate the "lawness" of physical law". But that's not true about the events themselves - at best, that's an interpretation of the events. Other interpretations could always be that we were wrong about what the laws were (something we've done more than once, in major ways, in science history), or that there's a lawful interpretation of the actual and real event that we're just missing, or otherwise. The theology gets you to the suspension of laws, sometimes. The event does not. I think you’ve misunderstood me. I don’t know ANY “Christian Darwinists” who identify themselves a such. I know many theistic evolutionists, and scientific creationists, and believers by other assorted names, but noone who takes on “Darwin” as part of their label. The label was not important: call them TEs if you like. I was asking you to show me these TEs who talk about the "craven bias" of "materialistic science" against religion. I pointed out that most TEs suggest that science simply has a very limited sphere, incapable of really providing us with very much (in and of itself) information about God, but about many other things as well, philosophy included. In fact, just about every claim you're trying to stick to 'theology' here could be made with equal, even greater, force against philosophy and metaphysics - and that includes naturalism and materialism.nullasalus
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
That just isn’t true, at least according to most theists now and in the past. One obvious example: logic. God cannot do the logically impossible, like make a square circle. (I’ve heard that some schools of muslim thought believe God can transcend even logic, but even so they have plenty of opposition on that point – and that’s all that’s required here.)
Yeah I'm not thinking any of that includes logical contradictions, but rather just a vast landscape of theological intuitions and conjectures. "Most theists" doesn't get StephenB anywhere, as reality isn't bound by such polls, and neither is God, if such a one exists. So a "Christian Darwinist" (I still don't know what an example of this would be) says "supernatural soul substance supervenes on the physical structure of a human mind". Yeah, that's not how Augustine would put it, but Augustine didn't have the light of Darwin's (correct) ideas to look at the world by. In any case, it's theology remember, so anything goes: one man's theological intuitions trivially achieve stalemate with every other. This isn't like science where we can let the extra-mental world provide adjudication through testing, validation, and falsification.
First, how is it magical thinking?
It supposes that God is intervening supernatural "behind the veil of quantum randomness". Magic - an agent manipulating the natural world by means of supernatural powers.
Second, a ‘curtain of randomness’ isn’t what really does the work in the theistic evolutionist’s standard, but the inability of science (at least science divorced from excess theological and metaphysical embrace) to offer any meaningful input on such questions. Have God intervene in an extremely small and indirect way, or in a tremendously large and direct way. Science is incapable of identifying (or ruling out) an act of God in either case, and if a person identifies the act as the work of God, they’re not going to be doing so in virtue of science alone.
The mode of intervention matters. YEC imaginations of creation -- Adam just appearing POOF! in the Garden of Eden, fully formed, belly button or no, is a problem for science, and those who understand the scientific witness to natural law. That's also the point on the part of many YECs, a way to flaunt physical law in a flamboyant way -- they serve a BIG, BIG God and that is how he rolls, etc. But such notions are incompatible with our scientific knowledge. If that's true, we might as well become subscribers to Last-Tuesdayism. But God behind the veil of randomness is not profane in scientific terms. It provides telic "steering" without having to change or overturn even the slightest bit of empirical evidence and scientific knowledge we have. You're right to say that we may be unable (in conceivable cases, like Last Tuesdayism) to identify a large and direct mode of intervention by God, but even so, SOME acts of intervention, and particularly those imagined by many traditional Christians are events that completely negate the "lawness" of physical law, and render it notional at best. For those who grant science a seat at the epistemic table that's a big problem. But, it's hardly avoidable even if we get past it with random point mutations. Christians have the whole Resurrection and virgin birth thing and many other events that are problematic this way that can't be abandoned (at least within the limits of orthodoxy).
Show me the ‘Christian Darwinist’ who says what you just did: that ‘materialistic science in its craven bias against religion’ does those things. As far as I can see, this goes entirely unsaid and absolutely doesn’t represent their thinking on the matter. What they say is that science has built-in limits and a tight focus, and as such cannot address these questions. No craven bias.
I think you've misunderstood me. I don't know ANY "Christian Darwinists" who identify themselves a such. I know many theistic evolutionists, and scientific creationists, and believers by other assorted names, but noone who takes on "Darwin" as part of their label. It also seems unlikely just in PR terms, given the Darwin Derangement Syndrome that suffuses conservative Christianity (and notably this blog). I'm just accepting, hypothetically, what StephenB asserts in {B} as the PoV of a "Christian Darwinist". I don't know such a creature, but if one were to take up {B}, one can just conjecture that the physical stuff of the human mind/brain has a supernatural (and thereby eternal) vector to it. QED. It's theology, so I'm quite safe just making stuff up as it strikes my fancy. Could be! No way to tell and no need to have such a way. If there were, it would be science, and that would be trouble. So the "Christian Darwinist" just does what any other theologian does and fashions his intuitions as he likes, and creates whatever "reasoning backwards" scaffolding he likes in support of that. He is now immune to StephenB's request for reconciliation by simply declaring his views reconciled. StephenB can't say otherwise with anything more forceful than StephenB's own intuitions, so it's, again, a stalemate. StephenB and the Christian Darwinist are both at parity now, and there's nothing StephenB can do about it. These are the wages of theology. (continued anon...)eigenstate
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
Clearly, Adam’s body returned to dust, but, from a Christian perspective, his soul lived on and continues to live, presumably in paradise.
So he brought incomprehensible suffering and death upon billions of people in an act of open rebellion for which God had told him he would die, and instead he got moved from one paradise to another? That's not bad. But it's also not hinted at in the scriptures. God said he was from dust and he would go back to dust. If that were the least relevant detail, why is it the only part mentioned. Moses and Elijah were a vision. How did the apostles recognize them? Had they seen photos of them? Why did Job say that God would long for the work of his hands after he died, if he was still around just in a different form? Why did Ezekiel say at 18:4 that the soul dies. When Israel was told not to touch a dead soul, what did that mean? How are animals souls? Why do the scriptures say that the dead do not praise God, and that their thoughts come to an end? Why did not one resurrected person mention their temporary existence as a disembodied soul? I don't make this stuff up. It's available in any dictionary of Hebrew. The modern redefining of the word has nothing to do with what people meant when they said it. It's retrofitted, much like adding natural selection to biological diversity after the fact. The Bible indicates that Christians could be resurrected as spirits rather than in physical bodies. This does not imply that they already were such before death.ScottAndrews2
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
When you pre-suppose an omniscient, omnipotent, impassable, mysterious God, there is literally nothing that cannot be reconciled with that in terms of physics, substances, or ontology for anything we see or experience. It’s quite literally “anything goes”, once you take that first leap in embracing belief in such a God, and the attendant beliefs in supernatural and physical substance which this god supervises in a plenipotentiary way. That just isn't true, at least according to most theists now and in the past. One obvious example: logic. God cannot do the logically impossible, like make a square circle. (I've heard that some schools of muslim thought believe God can transcend even logic, but even so they have plenty of opposition on that point - and that's all that's required here.) Now, maybe you'll grant the logical claim but argue that, still, theistic evolutionists can reconcile their beliefs with this God. Granted, but that reconciliation is still going to entail some commitments - and if they fail to make those commitments, then they're not offering a reconciliation. I think StephenB gets at this, and maybe you already cop to it, with his division between A and B. This is perfectly magical thinking, but it’s scrupulous in its avoidance of denialism in terms of science. If God WERE “scripting evolution from behind the curtain of randomness”, we by definition would not be able to know it, and so science is not perverted in embracing that view. First, how is it magical thinking? Second, a 'curtain of randomness' isn't what really does the work in the theistic evolutionist's standard, but the inability of science (at least science divorced from excess theological and metaphysical embrace) to offer any meaningful input on such questions. Have God intervene in an extremely small and indirect way, or in a tremendously large and direct way. Science is incapable of identifying (or ruling out) an act of God in either case, and if a person identifies the act as the work of God, they're not going to be doing so in virtue of science alone. But in any case, no it would not be “non-matter”. Such a “Christian Darwinist” would just say that supernatural vector (which is why I used that term) was just another attribute of matter, a vector that materialistic science in its craven bias against religion just ignores, cannot see, or denies. Show me the 'Christian Darwinist' who says what you just did: that 'materialistic science in its craven bias against religion' does those things. As far as I can see, this goes entirely unsaid and absolutely doesn't represent their thinking on the matter. What they say is that science has built-in limits and a tight focus, and as such cannot address these questions. No craven bias. Likewise, I think that Stephen's point is that once you start attributing some 'supernatural vector' to matter, then matter is something other than what materialists take it to be, insofar as that 'vector' is denied. Your move here seems a little like suggesting that cartesian dualists are actually materialists. It just so happens that they believe there's a kind of matter that is without extension and is the subject of experiences. Are you asking for an example of TEs committing to {B}? If so, the problem is that many TEs tend to obfuscate on this point. They argue that God and orthodox Christianity is entirely compatible with Darwinism, but when it's pointed out that Darwinism is wrapped up with the claim that evolution is unguided, impersonal and undirected their response is not to say either 'Then Darwinism is wrong - evolution has a spiritual vector' or 'Your definition of Darwinism is wrong - it does not require that evolution be unguided, impersonal or undirected'. It's to generally stay pretty damn quiet, and then host "friendly atheists" arguing that the only way God can be reconciled with Darwinism is by God creating so many multiverses that, purely by chance, something human-like springs up. Christian theology is whatever the owner wants it to be. That’s the nature of theology. It’s perfectly plastic, fungible into innumerable and fantastically diverse forms, all stuck in epistemic stalemate with every other theology. No, it's not. This would mean that shintoism is Christianity, despite shinto making zero mention of Christ. If you think that, I suggest the problem is with your own definition and view of Christianity. “Follows” is a concept you have to borrow from the real world It's a concept from philosophy and logic. And I think a reasonable reply StephenB could give here is that, fine - since you're basically saying that Christian Darwinists can reconcile evolution with Christianity by way of occasionalism, all you have to do is show me where they say they commit to embracing occasionalism. So far it seems that your main, and only, defense of the sort of TEs StephenB is talking about comes in the form of denying that any TEs of type B, either in reality or appearance, exist. That seems like a roundabout way of conceding StephenB that the thrust of StephenB's post is correct.nullasalus
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
"good their" should read "good thief."StephenB
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Scott, it seems evident to me that bodies die (though, according to Christian theology they will be resurrected for better or worse) and that souls do not. Clearly, Adam's body returned to dust, but, from a Christian perspective, his soul lived on and continues to live, presumably in paradise. I would suggest that the Bible provides numerous examples of individuals whose soul lived on after bodily death. Moses and Elijah, for example, appear to Peter, James, and John at the transfiguration. Obviously, their souls were not sleeping. Indeed, Jesus told the good their that, after death, he would join Him in paradise on that very day.StephenB
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
StephenB, Maybe this is a fruitful way forward: why is it that a soul CANNOT derive from matter? I understan you don't agree. But on what principle does this assertion (CANNOT be derived) stand? If you could reduce that to a simple syllogism or logical entailment, that would probably be quite valuable for this discussion. Because as it is, it seems like you are saying "That's just not the way Christians have traditionally thought about this". Which would seem to merit nothing more than a casual shrug from readers, here, both Christian and otherwise. Why cannot a soul be derived from matter? In my case, when question like this get put to me, I look to the physical laws, empirical observations and other probative bits from our experience to invoke as an empirical basis for thinking something "cannot" happen. For example, we have overwhelming evidence that supports the idea that a human body dead three days does not spontaneously or otherwise come back to life. Billions and billions of data points are available on this. It's not strictly determinative, but it is empirically rich for us as a source of information. But that really shows by contrast what you DON'T have. As I understand it, you don't have anything like that to point to. Nothing more than your intuition. Ah, but perhaps I'm just missing the "laws of derivation" you are relying on. Whence this law?eigenstate
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
At this point, I am not really trying to persuade anyone that the immaterial rational soul (or its immaterial faculty of intellect) exists. That is another argument. I am referring to Christians who already claim to believe that it does. The problem for Christian Darwinists is that the rational soul (as understood by Christians) cannot be reconciled with the idea that it emerged from matter.
I understand the context -- a debating point between Christians. But there's a transcendental problem, here: in order to arrive at this context, the common understanding from which you and the Christian part ways on material souls, you have to eschew the forms of understanding you need to assign any "problem" to your opponent. To explain this simply, suppose I am an "Anti-Causalist", and I am having a debate with fellow "Anti-Causalists". As an Anti-Causalist, I deny the principle of sufficient reason, and generally embrace the idea that things can and do happen for perfectly no reason whatsoever, and understand the "illusion" of causality to be just so much capricious theater played out for us by an impassable impersonal supernatural force. So, where can I go with that, in debating my fellow Anti-Causalist? Not very far, right? I can't press anything in "if/then" terms, because that depends on what I've forfeited. If then is merely an illusion, and there are no such rules in reality, just a kind of hyper-occasionalism. If I came to you and said "Well, I'm not trying to convince you of Anti-Causalism, or asking you to believe in Jenunu, the impersonal cosmic stochastic force that occasions as it does....", you'd not have to embrace Anti-Causalism to see that I'm in no position whatsoever to pursue arguments that depend on causality with my Anti-Causalist peers. You'd be right in pointing out that I've not get a leg to stand on. To apply that your post, when you say, "cannot be reconciled", you've forfeited the concept of "reconciled" by embracing the superstitions you do. That's you're prerogative to embrace them, but they necessarily annihilate any kind of "reconciliatory framework". When you pre-suppose an omniscient, omnipotent, impassable, mysterious God, there is literally nothing that cannot be reconciled with that in terms of physics, substances, or ontology for anything we see or experience. It's quite literally "anything goes", once you take that first leap in embracing belief in such a God, and the attendant beliefs in supernatural and physical substance which this god supervises in a plenipotentiary way.
They argue that the mind evolved through a materialistic, evolutionary process. Of course, they might want to say that, while minds exist, there are no souls, or that souls have nothing to do with minds, but I can’t imagine how that would help them. If you want examples, you may begin with Francis Collins and Ken Miller. For them, the evolutionary process is sufficient to produce a mind. By the way, why did you stop believing in Christianity?
Oh, I'm quite familiar with Miller, Collins, Simon Conway Morris, Darrell Falk, Richard Colling, and many others in that group. Collins, for example, believe that supernatural souls are "invested" or "endowed" in a miraculous way, supervening upon the physical, and is thus one that would fall under category {A}, which was also the basic view I subscribed to as a Christian. Theistic evolutionists, in my experience, are not shy about invoking supernatural intervention by God; Francis Collins, again, along with Miller, suppose that God works "behind the veil of randomness at the quantum level" such that God can direct mutations and other small "wings of a butterfly" events in biological development that subtly steer that development toward the goals God intends. This is perfectly magical thinking, but it's scrupulous in its avoidance of denialism in terms of science. If God WERE "scripting evolution from behind the curtain of randomness", we by definition would not be able to know it, and so science is not perverted in embracing that view. But the main point here is that, under the aegis of the Christian theism both you and the "Christian Darwinist" (I'm not familiar with anyone who identifies themselves that way), there's nothing to reconcile. A Christian can say: The evolved human mind becomes an eternal soul at conception, at the commencement of electrical activity in the brain, or at birth. You are powerless to resist this assertion, as your resistance cannot be any more forceful or "liable to reconcilation" than the assertion you've just been given. You and your "opponent" are dueling without epistemic weapons or tools of any kind. It's just waving the plastic spoons of your respective intuitions at each other, at ten paces. As for why I stopped believing in Christianity, that's a long and pretty boring story, but the basic summary is the confluence of three things -- a slowly developing courage to set aside social and intuitional prejudices toward Christian superstition, and to think and accept a more rigorous, critical and objective view of my long held beliefs, combined with a determined effort to salvage my faith in spite of any damaging effects of that through more and more knowledge and expertise in "defending the faith" and apologetics. I supposed (and this seems funny now, but it seemed a good idea at the time) that I could shore up the reasoning for my flagging faith as more and more rigorous critical thinking applied by learning and adopting more and more from thinkers like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga and Peter Kreeft. That was a big mistake, if my goal was to remain a Christian. Really looking carefully at the ideas and advocacy of William Lane Craig is pure acid on the faith a Christian who is applying good, skeptical and scientifically informed ideas. William Lane Craig's shenanigans do not and cannot disprove God's existence of course, but they do provide a powerful lens on the forms and modes of self-deception an foolish thinking that props up much of Christian faith-as-reasonable, including my own understanding of faith-as-reasonable.
You are redefining matter and you are assuming a teleological process. In any case, If it had a spiritual dimension, it wouldn’t be matter; it would be something else. The moment that you introduce spirit or purpose in the process, Darwin has left the building. We are discussing Christian Darwinists, not Christian Teilhardians.
Curiously, you pointed me at Collins, above. He's not any kind of "Christian Darwinist" as you've described it here. Can you point me to a link to one of these "Christian Darwinists" you speak of, making the claims you allege? I'd appreciate being able to hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. But in any case, no it would not be "non-matter". Such a "Christian Darwinist" would just say that supernatural vector (which is why I used that term) was just another attribute of matter, a vector that materialistic science in its craven bias against religion just ignores, cannot see, or denies. Says the Christian Darwinist: It is matter, it just has a supernatural, eternal aspect to it, in some configurations, and that part lasts forever, amen. And so be it, right? What can you say to that, based on your commitments? You've got nothing more to respond with than waving the plastic spoon of your particular theological intuitions in the air.
Again, I am not arguing for the legitimacy of Christian Theology. I am pointing out that Christian theology cannot be reconciled with the proposition that a soul (as understood by Christians) cannot derive from matter (as understood by Darwinists).
I understand, but you are dealing yourself aces from the bottom of the deck, here. Theology is not monolithic "as understood by Christians". Christian theology is whatever the owner wants it to be. That's the nature of theology. It's perfectly plastic, fungible into innumerable and fantastically diverse forms, all stuck in epistemic stalemate with every other theology. If you say "as commonly understood", you are simply pushing a fallacious appeal to ad populum arguments. Theologic truth is not normative per consensus or popularity. Unlike science, there is no appealing to authority, because no expertise can be demonstrated in theology, like it can in science. Before you object to that, it's perhaps worth noting how that kind of epistemic nihilism benefits you, for it's quite likely that your own theological views do not comport with "as commonly understood" across the broad catholic history of Christianity in substantial ways, yourself. So, "commonly" as a requirement is out. The "Christian Darwinist" says the material mind for humans has a supernatural and eternal vector. It sounds bogus to me, too, so I empathize with the reaction, but I am not embracing competing theologies that are just as indefensible and superstitious as I understand you to have embraced. Given the ground you are standing on, I can't see that you have anything that will even slightly nudge the Christian Darwinist's claim, let alone knock it over.
Do you mean to suggest that the soul, which is subject to judgment by virtue of its free-will activity during this life, doesn’t come into existence until life ends? That would not follow at all.
It doesn't follow at all to my mind, either. But that is the point. By "follow", you are using a stolen concept, something your basic paradigm has forfeited. When you adopt the theistic premises you have embraced, you necessarily give up the semantics of "follows" in terms of theology. "Follows" is a concept you have to borrow from the real world, where follows has semantics grounded in our experience, and causal models obtain from empirical testing and refinement. A Christian Darwinist can just brush your "doesn't follow" off, and with good justification. "It does follow", he counter-asserts. Instant stalemate, and you are again staring at each other with drawn plastic spoons at ten paces, looking all super-convinced and righteously indignant, yet totally unengaged or accountable or vulnerable to the other. You can't touch him, and he can't touch you on the merits, on the basis of "follows", as there is no "follows" semantics that is organic to theology. Follows is a just an idea you steal from the real world.
It has nothing to do with falsification; it is a question of logic. Something that will die cannot also be something that will live forever.
(my emphasis) I suggest you may want to read this in the light of the term "Freudian Slip", as I think you could not be more correct as to the bolded, and are making much more sense here than I think you are aware. But logic doesn't and can't corral that. There's no logical inconsistency in supposing that humans are "hybrids", where their human biology is a combination of flesh and spirit. The death of the flesh leaves the spirit only, and it the person is no longer a "hybrid" but just a spirit. That is not in any way a logical contradiction. It may completely whack as a model of reality, but even in that case it's no different than believing in unicorns. Unicorns may not exist, but it's not a LOGICAL inconsistency to suppose that they exist. It's logically possible, even if it's not actual. Logic without falsification doesn't get you very far. This is the conceit of rational intuitionists, and the triumph of scientific epistemology. The history of philosophy is replete with the failures of rational intuition as a self-standing heuristic. Intuition is a crucial and powerful driver for human thought and inquiry, but 'logic on its own' only produces trivial truths and tautologies. It doesn't inform or reveal anything about the real world around us, unless and until it actual gets applied to experience and tests in that real world.eigenstate
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Of course he did. It's a word that appears repeatedly in the Bible, applied to man and beast. It is what Adam became, and it is what died. It gets hungry. It gets tired. Israelites were not to touch dead souls. The word appears hundreds of times in the scriptures. You'd have to cherry-pick one or two that appear to indicate a different meaning, but with that interpretation they become contrary, not only to every verse that uses the word, but to countless other explicit statements, such as when God told Adam that he would return to dust. Do you not believe that Adam returned to the dust? Did God mean something else? What did happen to Adam, then? Was it worse than returning to the dust? Then why wasn't Adam warned? It's a after-the-fact add-on from Greek philosophy. Or did it go the other way? Was Plato a student of the Bible, and is that where he got it from?ScottAndrews2
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Correction: I am pointing out that Christian theology cannot be reconciled with the proposition that a soul (as understood by Christians) CAN derive from matter (as understood by Darwinists).StephenB
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
--"Such a concept [soul] was not only unknown to him [Moses], but it was contradictory to all he wrote." Jesus Christ spoke explicitly about the soul.StephenB
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
As always, I am boggled by theology that builds upon concepts found in the Bible (God, creation, etc.) while simultaneously disregarding that foundation. If you could ask Moses, who wrote the book of Genesis, about when God added an immortal, immaterial soul to man, then that prophet, who spoke with God like no other man, would ask, "What are you talking about?" Such a concept was not only unknown to him, but it was contradictory to all he wrote. When Adam died, he went back to the dust. Even Solomon wrote that man and beast had the same eventuality, and that the reader of Ecclesiastes, the person with a Bible in his hands, would die and enter a state without consciousness or knowledge. When Lazarus died, Jesus said he was sleeping. When Jesus himself died, he was in Hades or Sheol (Hell), the same inactive state that Solomon wrote of in Ecclesiastes. (If Jesus was a spirit before coming to earth and returned to that state immediately upon death, in what sense was he ever dead, and what was his sacrifice?) It was not until many years later that learned men felt the need to harmonize the Bible with Greek philosophy and thus imbue us all with an immaterial, immortal, inner being. If one doesn't even believe that the Bible originates with God and is therefore superior to the musing of philosophers, that's fine. But then why be concerned with it at all? If it wasn't good enough for Plato, and isn't complete unless harmonized with Aristotle, then what makes it special? That should be the position of atheists, not of Christians.ScottAndrews2
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
eigenstate, Thanks for your interesting comments. --“Aren’t you a believer in eternal souls? If so, it’s peculiar that you’d take issue with some evolutionary path to a supernatural soul. That may be unworkable, and I think it is, but it’s the “supernatural” part that’s lacking rational critique, not the evolution part. And if I’m recalling you correctly, you just “leap” there, to credulous acceptance of a rational soul. “ At this point, I am not really trying to persuade anyone that the immaterial rational soul (or its immaterial faculty of intellect) exists. That is another argument. I am referring to Christians who already claim to believe that it does. The problem for Christian Darwinists is that the rational soul (as understood by Christians) cannot be reconciled with the idea that it emerged from matter. ---“When I was a Christian, for the last decade or so I was a theistic evolutionist. Maybe theistic evolution (or “Biologos” or whatever they call it now) has changed a lot as an ideology, but I did not hold to scenario {B}, nor can I recall any of the many theistic evolutionists I interacte with embracing {B}. It’s a big world, so I don’t doubt that {B} does happen, but who would you point to as a reference for the advocacy of {B} out there? I’d be interested to read that argument from them.” They argue that the mind evolved through a materialistic, evolutionary process. Of course, they might want to say that, while minds exist, there are no souls, or that souls have nothing to do with minds, but I can't imagine how that would help them. If you want examples, you may begin with Francis Collins and Ken Miller. For them, the evolutionary process is sufficient to produce a mind. By the way, why did you stop believing in Christianity? ---“God’s design, from before the foundation of the universe, incorporated a spiritual dimension to matter that in configurations where God’s evolved creatures reason and respond to natural law, the supernatural vector of that matter-spirit fusion endures. That’s just how God designed it.” You are redefining matter and you are assuming a teleological process. In any case, If it had a spiritual dimension, it wouldn’t be matter; it would be something else. The moment that you introduce spirit or purpose in the process, Darwin has left the building. We are discussing Christian Darwinists, not Christian Teilhardians. ---No one knows anything, and everyone “knows” everything, all at the same time, and my credulous superstitions are just as powerful as yours, and so nullifying any theological position you want to adopt is trivial, if I don’t happen to agree with it.” Again, I am not arguing for the legitimacy of Christian Theology. I am pointing out that Christian theology cannot be reconciled with the proposition that a soul (as understood by Christians) cannot derive from matter (as understood by Darwinists). ---“Or, I could say: God ‘etherealizes’ the mind at death, and this becomes the eternal soul, preserved perfectly in character and quality, just unbound from the flesh. Evolution produced a physical ‘soul’ in the form of a reasoning mind with free will and moral agency, and it is “transcoded to eternity” upon the death of that person.” Do you mean to suggest that the soul, which is subject to judgment by virtue of its free-will activity during this life, doesn’t come into existence until life ends? That would not follow at all. ----At it’s most epic, it’s two idle conjectures trying to gum each other death, and failing horribly. No confirming, falsifying, or adjudicating feedback from real world evidence is needed, or even relevant. It has nothing to do with falsification; it is a question of logic. Something that will die cannot also be something that will live forever. ---“If your God can do all the magical, fabulous, imaginary things you subscribe to, so can the god of the subscriber to {B}.” God cannot contradict himself.StephenB
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
I agree with Eigen that there are other alternatives to {A} and {B}. But Eigen seems to think that this shows that religious philosophy is valueless. I disagree. It shows that the proper use of reason invalidates StephenB's conclusion. By the way, non-reductive physicalist Christians, such as Nancy Murphy, would hold {B} to be most likely.Bilbo I
November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply