Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Lutheran religious studies prof asks, Is methodological naturalism racist?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Robert F. Shedinger came across an open access 2020 paper in Social Psychology of Education, “Why are there so few ethnic minorities in ecology and evolutionary biology? Challenges to inclusion and the role of sense of belonging” which brought up something you are not likely to hear from the
Darwin Lobby:

It is well established that people of color are poorly represented in STEM fields compared with their representation in the larger population. That is for a host of complex sociological and economic reasons. But even taking this into consideration, the authors note that African Americans are even more poorly represented in EEB [ecology and evolutionary biology] fields in comparison with non-EEB fields of biology. This extremely poor representation in EEB cannot be explained by the factors leading to underrepresentation in STEM fields, so there must be something else going on.

To find out what, the authors surveyed a sample of college undergraduates from different racial and ethnic groups about their attitudes towards STEM in general and EEB in particular. The findings point to a number of factors, especially among African Americans, leading to a sense of not belonging in the culture of the EEB community. Two of these factors were a greater tendency toward religiosity and moral objections to evolution.

Surprisingly, and contrary to the expectations of the authors, African American (as well as Latino) undergraduates expressed a greater desire than white students to seek advanced education in ecology and evolutionary biology. Yet despite their interest level, the perceived lack of belonging they would experience in the EEB community appears to prevent their actual pursuit of advanced education (in 2014 African Americans earned fewer than 2 percent of PhDs granted in EEB fields but 5.1 percent in non-EEB subfields of biology).

As the authors note, African Americans consistently score higher on surveys of religiosity than the general population. This will not be surprising to anyone familiar with the African American church tradition. But African American undergraduates seem to be aware of the absolute requirement that EEB research be done in accordance with methodological (and de facto metaphysical) naturalism. Their religious inclinations will therefore be in conflict with the culture within the EEB community and it will be difficult for them to feel a sense of belonging in that community. The same with their moral objections to evolution, moral objections that are well founded in the African American experience (see Human Zoos). The demands of methodological naturalism thus become an impediment to the greater participation of people of color in ecology and evolutionary biology. What insights might we be losing as a result?

Robert F. Shedinger, “Is Methodological Naturalism Racist?” at Evolution News and Science Today (August 27, 2021)

When Shedinger asks, “What insights might we be losing as a result?”, one wants to ask, “Who is the ‘we’”? The Darwinians don’t want insights; they want control. Yes, the rest of us are losing insights but that hardly counts. Breaking the stranglehold sounds like a team effort.

It’s an interesting discussion of the findings in the light of the recent op-ed in Scientific American claiming that creationism was based on white supremacy.

See also: At Evolution News and Science Today: The casual racism of Charles Darwin. Shedinger calls Allison Hopper’s piece in Scientific American, “startlingly vacuous,” which raises — once again — the question of why on earth the mag published it. It’s not as if there is no scholarship on the topic of Darwin and racism. Did the editors not want to address that scholarship? Well, we can’t read minds but we can make some reasonable guesses. How about: Create a big uproar and hope everyone will focus on that and not on the topic at hand? Shedinger also notes perceptively, “One does not become racist because of the view one holds on human origins. One becomes racist for other complex reasons and then reads that racism back into whatever view on human origins you hold.”

Comments
ram
There are atheists who reject “God” and all the religions floating about (I completely understand) but still think there are intelligent beings, far greater than human intelligences, who created/manage life on earth. It’s a spectrum. Make sense?
Yes, exactly. They're not very numerous -- and as such, we usually consider atheists to be "atheist-materialists" who deny all immaterial essences. But there's more to it - as you say. There are also God-believers who reject the idea that "there is evidence of Intelligent Design in nature".Silver Asiatic
September 28, 2021
September
09
Sep
28
28
2021
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
Kairofocus, Of course there are. There are atheists who reject "God" and all the religions floating about (I completely understand) but still think there are intelligent beings, far greater than human intelligences, who created/manage life on earth. It's a spectrum. Make sense?ram
September 27, 2021
September
09
Sep
27
27
2021
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
Ram, there are even atheists who are ID supporters. KFkairosfocus
September 24, 2021
September
09
Sep
24
24
2021
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
Ram - Natures IQ: Extraordinary Animal Behaviors that Defy Evolution, by Balaz Hornyansky & Istvan Tasi It's a work of art - in it's ideas, science, observations of nature, logic and visual display. The last chapter tries to identify the designer using Vedic theology and that part didn't do much for me, but that's just the philosophy of the authors. For all the rest, their science is great and this is a great insight on the amazing variety of animal behaviors that ornament our world.Silver Asiatic
September 20, 2021
September
09
Sep
20
20
2021
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, What is the name of the book?ram
September 20, 2021
September
09
Sep
20
20
2021
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Q
In class, a professor can embarrass and intimidate a student’s upbringing or non-Marxist opinions simply by asserting their position of authority by eye-rolling. I know I had this experience in a few college classes.
Exactly. They use their power to silence any opposition - without ever having to give an argument.Silver Asiatic
September 20, 2021
September
09
Sep
20
20
2021
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
Ram
Are Hindu-theists allowed here?
Yes, definitely. ID is not aligned with any specific religion. One of the best ID books I've read was written by a Hindu polytheist group. All of the facts and science are the same as Christian IDists (although they stuck some Hindu theology in at the end, in the way Christians put some Bible verses - but aside from that the same).Silver Asiatic
September 20, 2021
September
09
Sep
20
20
2021
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @274, Well said.
Breakdown in relationship with father in the family leads to distance and even hatred of God as Father.
Ouch. I've never considered this, but I can see where it applies. I wonder how much teachers and counselors actually promote the break between children and parents under the guise of "independence," substituting their own atheistic beliefs as the rational alternative. In class, a professor can embarrass and intimidate a student's upbringing or non-Marxist opinions simply by asserting their position of authority by eye-rolling. I know I had this experience in a few college classes. -QQuerius
September 20, 2021
September
09
Sep
20
20
2021
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Querius
This profound responsibility includes discovering what special and unique gifts each of them were born with, and then to help them flourish in those gifts. In other words, we didn’t try to force them toward any field or career, but to counsel, encourage, and facilitate their growth.
That approach shows not only respect for the freedom of the children, but accepting that we don't really know what is the best path for them. Our job is to collaborate with God's guidance. So that's the huge difference. God may choose to take a young child out of this life because He knows the whole curve of the trajectory - the peaks and valleys. He also responds to all prayers offered - from parents to even strangers who pray for all people, and from each individual. All of that gets weighed in the balance. What gifts did we receive? Some have more, some less. Those who have been given more, more will be required of them. For me, it's easy to blame atheists for lack of faith, but some people simply did not receive the best things in youth, or as we said, some people were badly abused. Others are proud and arrogant because they feel hatred for themselves and want to over-compensate. A lot of atheism is opposition to one's father. Faith of the Fatherless by Paul Vitz, psychiatrist - that book talks about it. Breakdown in relationship with father in the family leads to distance and even hatred of God as Father.Silver Asiatic
September 20, 2021
September
09
Sep
20
20
2021
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Vivid, this one will not settle down for a long time. My attenuated monitoring and eventual intervention above reflect a commitment to carry forward my remaining life purpose. KFkairosfocus
September 20, 2021
September
09
Sep
20
20
2021
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @267, Good points all. On the subject of parentage, my wife and I always assumed that our children were entrusted to us by God. We don't "own" them, but rather it's our responsibility and ministry to raise them. This profound responsibility includes discovering what special and unique gifts each of them were born with, and then to help them flourish in those gifts. In other words, we didn't try to force them toward any field or career, but to counsel, encourage, and facilitate their growth. -QQuerius
September 19, 2021
September
09
Sep
19
19
2021
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT
Are Hindu-theists allowed here? Or only Christians?ram
September 19, 2021
September
09
Sep
19
19
2021
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
Querius
What if you destroy life by eating it? Murder?
It's a great question. There have been human societies that permitted and encouraged cannibalism. In South America, Christian missionaries put an end to that (at a high cost in the struggle to do so). Why do we continue to hold the Christian idea? Other societies even today consider it a crime of sorts to eat certain animal life. Is it?
20 out of 28 states in India had various laws regulating the act of slaughtered cow, prohibiting the slaughter or sale of cows.
Western atheism adopts the Christian ideas on these matters as if they're self-evident, but they're not - they come from theology.Silver Asiatic
September 19, 2021
September
09
Sep
19
19
2021
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
LCD
This world is made by God to produce saints(to replace fallen angels)
Great thought - perfectly stated. That thought makes sense of everything. Whatever we go through is meant for that exact goal - making us saints. This world is not meant to be an utopia. We certainly try to make it better, but in the end it's temporary. Every generation has its crosses - for the purpose of helping us and perfecting us in the struggle.Silver Asiatic
September 19, 2021
September
09
Sep
19
19
2021
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
Seversky
Human parents are regarded as being responsible for the care and well-being of their children
Yes, exactly. We don't use the term "ownership" but parents have rights to their children in the same way.
but they are not regarded as having perpetual ownership of them.
They are regarded as having perpetual parentage of their children and are always in that role - nothing can take it away. And in healthy relationships, children always reverence their parents, show them respect and care for them. It's the same with God - He always has parentage of His children. Replacing "parent" with "owner" is your usage here and not what I would say. Yes, parents have the right to guide and make decisions for children and they do have ownership of responsbility for them. God has the same for His children. Being an adult in the family of God does not mean being free to act against what God wants - given that is acting against ultimate good, and therefore choosing evil.
Once the child reaches an age where they are held to be capable of being self-sufficient they are on their own.
As above, a child is never not the son or daughter of parents. The child, no matter how old, is never independent that way. Moreso, being "on one's own" as separate from God - who is not only the creator but the continual sustainer of one's life is self-destructive.
If it would not be immoral for God to do that then by the same argument, parents killing their children to preserve them from possible misery and crimes would also not be immoral.
You're not thinking this through. Parents are not the creators of those children. Their parentage is secondary - it's a privilege given to them. They do not ultimately own the origin of their children. Taking their lives would be usurping authority they don't have. Additionally, what you have to keep in mind (you seem to forget) is the concept of "eternal life" and "immortal soul". God gives this in exchange for taking the life of a person on earth. It's an exchange that a parent cannot give. The parent does not have the authority to take the child, created by God - in the same way, I would not have the right to take the life of someone else's child. If a parent takes a life, he cannot replace it with eternal life. Only God can. A key thing to remember -- everything you have has been given to you. This is either directly or indirectly. You don't have real pure and independent ownership of anything. Yes, you have responsibility, for example, for your actions and thoughts because they are "yours" in a limited sense. But the capability for life did not come from you - it came from your creator. In that highly dependent condition, it's difficult to see how you can make judgements against the one who gives life, creates the moral law and even gave you the capability to think and understand. Aside from your vices, since, virtues and goodness - nothing much accompanies your soul upon death. This how we can see the limits of our ownership.Silver Asiatic
September 19, 2021
September
09
Sep
19
19
2021
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
Querius
To your point, all these changes will certainly manifest themselves continually in tangible ways, or the person is a phony and not worthy of the gift they were offered.
Good point. I see it in slightly a different way - for example, it's difficult to think that a believing person after, say, 25 years of ministry who later falls away - never really was sincere at the beginning, but we're saying the same thing basically in different terms.Silver Asiatic
September 19, 2021
September
09
Sep
19
19
2021
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Seversky The idea that God somehow owns the living creatures He creates is morally problematical because it is too close to slaves being owned by others.
God and humans are different categories so your mixture is an ontological/category error . Then morally problematic is a human that have few years of experience on Earth and knows almost nothing thinks that is smart enough to judge the Creator of Universe. Go figure that.
If it would not be immoral for God to do that then by the same argument, parents killing their children to preserve them from possible misery and crimes would also not be immoral.
Same ontological error.Hanks
September 19, 2021
September
09
Sep
19
19
2021
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
KF Welcome back I hope things are settling down for you Vividvividbleau
September 19, 2021
September
09
Sep
19
19
2021
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
Seversky, The problem is when you try to anthropomorphize God. God created space and time and does not have human limitations involving space and time. God doesn't live within our space and time. God doesn't sit on a cloud as a throne and doesn't have a long, white beard. God also establishes truth and justice, but humans are limited to a subset. For example, if you throw away a piece of paper, is that the moral equivalent of murder? What if you destroy life by eating it? Murder? What if you turn off your cell phone. Murder? Slavery? -QQuerius
September 19, 2021
September
09
Sep
19
19
2021
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic/216
If your own life belongs to your creator, then it is His. So, it wouldn’t be immoral for God to take children out of this life and bring them to live with Him forever in heaven — right? You can see that, I’m sure
The idea that God somehow owns the living creatures He creates is morally problematical because it is too close to slaves being owned by others. I would argue that any principle which asserts one person can be the property of another is immoral. Human parents are regarded as being responsible for the care and well-being of their children but they are not regarded as having perpetual ownership of them. Once the child reaches an age where they are held to be capable of being self-sufficient they are on their own.
In fact, taking children out of this life where there could be misery and crimes against them, and taking them to a place of eternal peace and happiness … how could that be immoral?
If it would not be immoral for God to do that then by the same argument, parents killing their children to preserve them from possible misery and crimes would also not be immoral.Seversky
September 19, 2021
September
09
Sep
19
19
2021
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
1. Why do some detractors care when they are already intractably wedded to MN? 2. Why do some detractors not seem to interested in cogent dialog for learning purposes? 3. Why do some detractors repeatedly raise the same debunked objections from the past? 4. What kinds of motivations impel different detractors? Self justification? Mockery? Debate? Gamesmanship? Trolling and disruption? Or perhaps a cry for help?
All these are necessary for Christians that's why are allowed by God . Think :"Cross". Just trust God and live like a Christian. This world is made by God to produce saints(to replace fallen angels) everything else is garbage.Lieutenant Commander Data
September 19, 2021
September
09
Sep
19
19
2021
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
KF, Wonderfully articulated and stepped through! Since there are some who continually impose and propagate methodoligical naturalism in spite of numerous and overwhelming evidences to the contrary (fine tuning, origin of the big bang, origin of stupendous design, origin of mind-boggling information in nature, the biochemical origin of life, the interaction of entropy, the shattering experimental discoveries in quantum mechanics, the persistent racism within Darwinism, and so on), questions of "why" emerge. 1. Why do some detractors care when they are already intractably wedded to MN? 2. Why do some detractors not seem to interested in cogent dialog for learning purposes? 3. Why do some detractors repeatedly raise the same debunked objections from the past? 4. What kinds of motivations impel different detractors? Self justification? Mockery? Debate? Gamesmanship? Trolling and disruption? Or perhaps a cry for help? Back to the OP . . .
Robert F. Shedinger came across an open access 2020 paper in Social Psychology of Education, “Why are there so few ethnic minorities in ecology and evolutionary biology?
How many jobs are available in the fields of ecology and evolutionary biology? How employable is a degree in Extraterrestrial Biology, to use an extreme example? “Ethnic minorities,” especially recent immigrants, are keenly aware of the necessity of getting a job, so they choose practical fields of education. As an immigrant myself, this has also been true for my family.
But African American undergraduates seem to be aware of the absolute requirement that EEB research be done in accordance with methodological (and de facto metaphysical) naturalism. Their religious inclinations will therefore be in conflict with the culture within the EEB community and it will be difficult for them to feel a sense of belonging in that community. - Robert F. Shedinger
Yes! Many people, including people of color, have noticed that there’s quiet hostility against authentic Christians in the U.S. who are not “true believers” in Darwinism and methodological naturalism. This results in them being filtered out from positions in academia, from high-level promotions in business, and from the media. I once received a call from someone associated with public broadcasting interested in interviewing me for a program. When they discovered in the initial, informal phone interview that I was a Christian, the conversation ended something like this: Interviewer: "You didn't tell me you're a Christian!" Me: "Oh, was that important?" Interviewer: "That won't work at all." (click) Let me reaffirm that ID is not specifically Christian. All ID provides is a scientific alternative to a MN paradigm in research. There's no logical reason that science must presuppose MN, Uniformitarianism, or Darwinism, and then try to rationalize science to fit these ideas. Similarly, I'm opposed to trying to syncretize science with the Bible, if for no other reason that science is always changing while the Bible is not. -QQuerius
September 19, 2021
September
09
Sep
19
19
2021
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
F/N: I pause to come by, I think a few notes will perhaps help: 1] This thread long since drifted from the OP focus, "Lutheran religious studies prof asks, Is methodological naturalism racist?" . . . on creation of a hostile climate for Afro-Americans in a sub discipline otherwise attractive to them. 2] Methodological naturalism is arguably a question-begging imposition and ideological distortion of science away from seeking truth about the observable world informed by empirical evidence and reasoning reviewed by the community, into a priori imposition of evolutionary materialism as say Lewontin admitted. 3] That imposition leads to polarisation with the culture and with groups in it who are inclined to theism, so can indeed impose an institutional barrier to minorities inclined to theism. 4] However, the bigger issue is ideological captivity of science to evolutionary materialistic scientism used to further take the wider culture captive to radical secularist humanism and linked dubious policies and marches of folly and chaos. 5] Given known rhetorical patterns, it is unsurprising that the thread was rapidly diverted to more or less typical rhetoric targetting the heritage of Christendom, the Christian Faith and its main source documentation, the Bible. In particular, God is a moral monster and oh the documentation is dubious and the like. 6] As some of those raising such are long term objectors, they know these go beyond the proper focus of UD, and that if one genuinely seeks serious answers such can be found in other web venues where that is focal and backed by people with relevant advanced qualifications. So, the question of toxic, tainting distraction arises, implying that the original point from OP is on target but inconvenient. 7] Of course, repeated distraction of a leading blog on the design inference into debates on Bible etc opens the rhetorical inference that oh see this ID stuff is just Creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo etc. Thus there is intent to pose a dilemma, allow hostile accusations and tainting to pass unanswered or find oneself tainted as leading a fraudulent pseudoscientific agit prop campaign. 8] As those who tried to entrap Jesus over a woman caught in the act of adultery [where was the man?] soon discovered, this sort of entrapping, toxic false dilemma is a destructive fallacy that points rather to those who play such rhetorical cards. 9] Shortly before my ongoing life crisis, I had to address much the same tactic here at UD. The first thing is that as our weak argument correctives clearly and adequately document, the design inference stands on its own empirical merits, independent of any particular religious tradition or movement such as Biblical Creationism, old or young earth. Those who habitually resort to these tactics do so in the teeth of readily accessible correction and so are promoters of polarising falsehoods. Such must be corrected. 10] In outline, start with the known centrality of complex coded 4-state digital algorithmic information in the heart of the living cell. Language applied to computation using astonishing molecular nanotechnologies. There is no other empirically warranted source of such computational information but intelligently directed deeply knowledgeable contrivance and configuration. The inference to design is well warranted for the world of life from the cell on up. 11] Set that in the context of an observed cosmos -- the only actually observed cosmos -- that credibly began some 14 BYA, and which shows considerable fine tuning that supports C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life. Start with the fine tuning to get to the element abundance pattern and related physics, chemistry, galactic and circumstellar habitable zones etc for such life. Cosmological design is a warranted empirically grounded inference. With again no reference to any particular traditions or movements. 12] Further to this, we can readily see that ciceronian first duties of reason are inescapable first principles of our morally governed rationality: to truth, to right reason, to prudence [including warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbour, so to fairness and justice, etc. The attempted objector will find himself unable to avoid appealing to what he would overthrow, and one attempting to prove will find herself similarly appealing to such duties at every step. These are start-points of rationality, indicating that moral government is foundational to a world with creatures such as we are. 13] So, it is highly reasonable to hold that the required necessary being root of a contingent cosmos and of whatever wider reality might be, is the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One worthy of loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident, morally governed nature. Again, independent of particular religious traditions, indeed at core this is Plato and Cicero speaking with many others. It is reasonable to be an ethical theist, and sciences should not build in barriers to such. 14] But then, what of the Dawkins indictment and the like?
Dawkins, The God Delusion: “The God of the Old Testament [= The God of Israel . . . ] is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully . . . ” [Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Great Britain: Bantam Press, 2006, 31. Kindly, see links and remarks in response at the just linked.]
15] This of course, comes from the same man who indicts those he targets as "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked," while failing to understand not only the blinding nature of out of control rage and vituperation, but that to argue on the binding nature of moral obligation one must have an adequate foundation for such binding moral obligation. After centuries of debates, it remains that there is only one such, the God of ethical theism. So, the commenters above are quite right to point out this fatal flaw in atheistical appeals to anti-God arguments from evil. 16] And that is before we note that 50 years ago now, Plantinga broke the back of the deductive argument from evil by showing that the theistic set is coherent. That's why that argument and linked inductive arguments have lost much of their persuasive force. At least, with the reasonable and reasonably informed. 17] Next, there are considerable responses to the Dawkins accusation and the like that are readily accessible, if one is perplexed and seeks genuine answers. A 101 start is here on. (Where, we should note that the culture agenda target is to try to shame and silence those who adhere to the heritage of our Judaeo-Christian roots, opening the way to aggressive, essentially amoral secularisation and the nihilistic principle that might and manipulation make 'right,' 'rights,' 'truth,' 'justice,' 'knowledge,' 'science,' 'history' [= victory propaganda], 'policy,' 'law,' etc. Those caught up in this tide of accusation should be aware of what it leads to.) 18] As a start, try Copan here and in his writings. There are many others who have seriously tacked these themes such as William Lane Craig, e.g. here. Coming back, it is clear that methodological naturalism as an imposition is not a legitimate epistemological principle of science, so it is unsurprising that it has pernicious effects. Going beyond, the distractions and associated accusations and false dilemmas have answers and we need to be aware of where some would take our civilisation. I doubt that many want to end up there. KFkairosfocus
September 19, 2021
September
09
Sep
19
19
2021
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Bob OH “But if God takes away that chance, to show we are worthy…?” Actually we can never be worthy “Romans 3:9–12 (ESV): both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11  no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12  All have turned aside; together they have become WORTHLESS no one does good, not even one.” Jesus did not come for those who think they are healthy He came for those who know they are sick. Vividvividbleau
September 18, 2021
September
09
Sep
18
18
2021
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, Yes, and the way I understand it from the New Testament, after we accept the free gift of forgiveness and salvation that we cannot possibly earn or be worthy of, it's normal that our lives and attitudes will change--namely a fruitfulness of love, joy, kindness, generosity, forgiving other people, and so on with the help of the Holy Spirit working in them. To your point, all these changes will certainly manifest themselves continually in tangible ways, or the person is a phony and not worthy of the gift they were offered. -QQuerius
September 18, 2021
September
09
Sep
18
18
2021
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
Querius
He’s not saying that salvation is actually based on our own worthiness ...
Well, I'm saying that we have to be worthy of it. We have to be turned towards the good and not evil - and this is the result of our choice. We have to make the choice for God and heaven, and then stick with it. That's the path of virtue that is open to every human being. And yes, more than just virtue - the sacrificial death of Jesus provided the unique means for forgiveness for all people. But then, how we actually become worthy is a different matter. Can we forgive our own sins against God and neighbor? Clearly no - we ask God for mercy and forgiveness. So, becoming worthy is not something we just declare for our self. But we have to do our part continually. Yes, God our creator changes us - by grace, love, power, relationship, infused charity, divine virtues - all of those things. That's why we pray. We ask for these gifts. That's the only way to do it. But in the end, we have to show ourselves as deserving of the reward. Some Bible quotes on how we must show ourselves worthy:
He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy to come. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
God gives us the chance in this life. We are invited to the feast - we have to put on the wedding garment of prayer and good works. We have to take up the cross of being generous, kind and truthful - and a lot of hardships we don't like. We have to detach even from family members and friends if they become an obstacle to our spiritual growth. There's kind of a radical Protestant view that says "we can do nothing at all", but not all Protestants believe that. What it should be is that "we need God's help to do good - but even with God's help, we have to do our part, we have to make choices." We have a responsibility. Yes, we all have flaws, we have all done wrong and need to be forgiven, and we need to try to repair the wrong we have done as best we can. But we have to make the effort. We ask God for forgiveness through the death of Jesus -- He did the penance that it was impossible for humanity to do.Silver Asiatic
September 18, 2021
September
09
Sep
18
18
2021
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
Bob O'H,
But if God takes away that chance, to show we are worthy…?
I think you misunderstood Silver Asiatic. He's not saying that salvation is actually based on our own worthiness, but rather that people typically do rely on their worthiness. Trying to gain worthiness on our own is never successful--everyone fails in respect to keeping the 10 Commandments. That's why God in the form of Jesus had to suffer and die on the cross for us in our place. However, God has mercy on babies and children below the age of their accountability because they were denied a choice. You should not begrudge them a free pass as a result, nor fault God for his mercy on them while you yourself are in peril of God's judgment. Someday when it's too late, it will be obvious to you that the brilliant design genius of God in the creation could not have occurred as a result of, for example, a random explosion in a chemical factory. -QQuerius
September 18, 2021
September
09
Sep
18
18
2021
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Bob
But if God takes away that chance, to show we are worthy…?
It's definitely a mystery because we can't see all the variables that go into the outcome. By faith we accept that everyone has a full chance and opportunity to show this - or with the case of children, it won't be needed because they are innocent in that state (especially the baptized). For any adults, every day is a chance to show our best. So God gives us a chance while we're living. Why do some people never care about this? Would they have changed if God just gave them a few more years? Why would God cut them off when they are deep in sin and violence? It's like Lazarus and the Rich Man. The Rich Man is in hell after persecuting Lazarus during life with no mercy. But then the Rich Man asks Lazarus to go and tell his brothers that they need to repent because Hell is very bad and very real. But Lazarus tells the Rich Man that he can't do it. "If they don't listen to Moses and the Prophets, they won't listen even if one would come back from the dead." To me, that's one of the most frightening and "real" stories in the Bible. Some people are arrogant in their wealth and others suffer a lot. In that story, we see how it works out. The Rich Man asks God for mercy in hell - and God says "No - you received good things in your life and Lazarus evil". That's where I always get uncomfortable. I've received many good things in this life. Am I like the Rich Man? But the point here is that the Rich Man's brethren wouldn't repent even if Lazarus came to them from the dead. Jesus wasn't even talking about the Gospel. "If they don't listen to Moses and the Prophets" - in other words, they're totally closed off from spiritual truths. The Old Testament was good enough to tell them not to revel in their luxuries and watch others suffer in need. But they're so locked-into their own mind, they can't change. They don't want to show themselves worthy. God eventually brings their life to an end - and they're heading for the place where the Rich Man ended. God is merciful and cuts their life short because if it continued, they would do worse evils, hurt more people on earth and their punishment hereafter would be even worse. So, they get a chance. The Rich Man had a chance. So do all of us while we're living. We can show ourselves worthy of mercy and to be a person who cares about others and cares about the goodness of God - basically to love God and neighbor. Very basic human things. But we don't know if we have tomorrow. If we need to show more worthiness we can pray and ask for more time (as I do) but also just trust that God will bring us to worthiness and sanctification. We can't do it by ourselves. Our creator can create a good, living soul within us and forgive our sins. That's the "divine economy" - good and evil, reward and punishment - balanced out in justice and mercy.Silver Asiatic
September 18, 2021
September
09
Sep
18
18
2021
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
In the end, we have to show ourselves worthy – that’s another big issue. We receive the gift of life. What did we do with it? Are we worthy of mercy or punishment? What do we deserve in the end?
But if God takes away that chance, to show we are worthy...?Bob O'H
September 18, 2021
September
09
Sep
18
18
2021
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Bob O'H
True, but then would not rescuing them when you could be considered immoral?
As you say, this is an aspect of the problem of evil and it's complex because we only see part of the story. In the end, everything works out to perfect justice. Some people live a long life, others short. Some have a lot of advantages for things, others few. Some have knowledge, others none. Some had help and prayer and mercy from God, some didn't know anything about God. In the end, advantages are weighed against disadvantages. How the person used the talents he had, what he did with his life, what he contributed - how he helped others, all of those go into it. Jesus gives the story of the widow who gave just one small coin as a gift. He explains that is greater than people who gave much bigger sums of money in charity - because she gave everything she had. So, it's what we do with what we have. In the end, we have to show ourselves worthy - that's another big issue. We receive the gift of life. What did we do with it? Are we worthy of mercy or punishment? What do we deserve in the end? Enemies of God and of life and of other human beings - people who are committed to pleasing themself only at the cost of everyone else, and with no gratitude to God for anything -- and who cause pain and misery for many -- we hope they will change and turn on a good path. But if not ... let's just say it's not a good situation to be an enemy of God. He does good for us. Good should be returned for good. We understand that from life itself.Silver Asiatic
September 18, 2021
September
09
Sep
18
18
2021
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
1 2 3 10

Leave a Reply