True Horizon

Last night I got to hear and shake the hand of a man I have admired for many years. Phillip Johnson visited a local university and spoke on the status of the Intelligent Design movement and where he thinks it is headed in the future.

What a treat.

Though Dr. Johnson has suffered a series of strokes since 2001 and has some physical difficulties on his left side as a result, his mind is as clear and analytical as it has ever been. The format of his presentation was an interview (that allowed him to be seated throughout) but his answers to the questions posed were long and lecture-like. He also had no trouble injecting some humor into his assessment of the Darwinist “priesthood” and the reasons for its virulently nasty response to ID. One need only compare the venom of the “priesthood’s” response to this gentle man to consider who is more confident in the strength of their case.

For those who may not know him, Johnson graduated from Harvard in 1961, received his law degree from the University of Chicago, was a law clerk for Chief Justice Earl Warren, and taught law for 33 years at the University of California, Berkeley. During his time there, Johnson started reading various critics of Darwinism — many of whom were evolutionists themselves — and realized that there were giant holes in the theory that was being touted as “fact.” So, in good lawyer form, Johnson set out to put Darwin on Trial in 1991. His book (by that title) was so devastating to the Evolutionary paradigm, and so well written, that several closet critics of Darwin took note and contacted him about it. It was from those original meetings that the Intelligent Design movement was born.

If you are interested in reading more about Phil Johnson I would recommend Darwin’s Nemesis, a book that looks at his contributions to the Darwinist-Intelligent Design debate by several of those who have joined him in the cause.

In that first book Johnson proclaimed that:

My purpose is to examine the scientific evidence on its own terms, being careful to distinguish the evidence itself from any religious or philosophical bias that might distort our interpretation of that evidence … The question I want to investigate is whether Darwinism is based upon a fair assessment of the scientific evidence, or whether it is another kind of fundamentalism.

That is all he has ever done since.

I approached Dr. Johnson after the event to thank him for all he has done in his pursuit of truth and open scientific inquiry. It truly was an honor to meet him. He is a meek and humble gentleman whose age is wearing on him. But as I stood waiting to introduce myself to him I couldn’t help contemplating how many of us, who try to add our own trivial input to this debate, may not realize what a giant of a man it takes to have each of us stand on his shoulders.

Well, at least the Catholics and (some) Protestants can agree on something. Unfortunately that something leaves much to be desired. The Catholic church, in its ongoing attempt to show its relevance to modern culture, has chosen to “update” its list of Deadly Sins. Though the original list (pride, envy, lust, anger, sloth, greed and gluttony) seems adequately all inclusive to me, apparently the Church doesn’t consider it sufficient to encompass new terms that are more politically correct. The Vatican reports that:

The new deadly sins include polluting, genetic engineering, being obscenely rich, drug dealing, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice.

Maybe I’m just a little slow but, given the definitions of the “old” deadly sins:

Pride is excessive belief in one’s own abilities, that interferes with the individual’s recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Envy is the desire for others’ traits, status, abilities, or situation.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or covetousness.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.

… it seems to me these new ones would fit nicely into the previously established categories: (Read on …)

This story (Francis Schaeffer’s son: Dad ‘worse’ than Obama’s pastor. Charges black minister’s ‘anti-America’ rhetoric mild by comparison), sent to me by a good friend earlier this week, really got me going for two reasons. First, it is textbook example of the fallacy that goes with believing that Proverbs are promises. Second, the self-righteous, pseudo-sincerity in it is exceeded only by the complete lack of logic it demonstrates.

The second topic first. Frank Schaeffer is the infamous son of one of the greatest philosophical minds in history, Francis Schaeffer , a man whose teaching and writing on the philosophical foundations of the Christian worldview and analysis of the trajectory of human thought are not only required reading for anyone interested in thinking clearly about the Christian faith, but concise and deadly accurate in its predictions about where the humanistic philosophy would take us as a society. His influence on contemporary Christian thinking has been profound. In short, the elder Schaeffer got it right when it came to assessing the philosophical underpinnings of our moral and cultural decline. He was a giant in the area of worldview analysis and his writing has stood the test of time. Yes, there have been those who have taken his views to extremes but we could say that about anybody — including Jesus Christ. Having said that, please don’t let us judge any philosophy or religion by those who choose to corrupt it.

Unfortunately one of those who has chosen to corrupt it is the author’s own son. (Read on …)

A couple of weeks ago a co-worker and I were navigating through blizzard conditions in the Midwest when I said something like, “Wow, it sure is weird to think Easter is right around the corner.”

“What do you mean?”

“I’m just saying that when your running around in a snow storm, it’s hard to believe it’ll be Easter Sunday in less than two weeks.”

“Are you serious? When is Easter anyway?”

“It’s on March 23rd … Sunday after next.”

“Holy crap. I’m flying that day. I didn’t even look at the calendar when I bid for my schedule.”

The conversation went on but here’s my question. Can you even imagine the average American (let alone the average Christian) not realizing when Christmas was? (Read on …)

We had a foot of snow where I live just a little over a week ago. Today it’s a little warmer (and all the snow is all gone) but it sure doesn’t seem like we should be celebrating Easter, for goodness sake. What is up with this early date for Easter anyway?

I have to admit that the easy answer sounds awfully pagan. The date always changes because it is tied to the Spring Equinox. More precisely, it falls on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox.

Got it?

It sound convoluted but just describing it that way leaves an awfully lot out of the story. Why the Sunday after the full moon after the equinox became the designated day for Easter is the important thing. As always, there is more to the story — a definitive reason for its being that way — and the reason is profound. It has everything to do with deliverance and redemption — the concepts behind our need for a Savior.

Why Sunday? This seems blatantly obvious. Jesus’ resurrection was on “the third day” after his death on good Friday, hence Sunday. What is more significant is that the Jewish Sabbath was on Saturday (shabbat in Hebrew) and this was the day that held such significance for the Jewish people. It was one reason that Jesus got himself in trouble — he had the audacity to heal, and work, and … whatever on the Sabbath. The fact that Jewish believers changed their holiest day to Sunday (the “first day of the week”) after Christ is one of the strongest indicators that something very significant happened on that first Easter Sunday. Religious traditions don’t just change willy-nilly — and this offers strong apologetic support for the claim that the resurrection wasn’t just some group hallucination. It was a real event that forever altered the course of humanity in general, and the church in particular.

Why the tie to the full moon and the Equinox? The answer is rich in Jewish history and can be summarized with just one word: Passover. The Jewish people celebrated Passover on the first full moon after the Spring Equinox. It was, and is, a celebration to remember the events that led them from their slavery in Egypt to their freedom to become that nation God meant them to become — a nation from which a savior would emerge to save all men. Passover was celebrated in family homes. Its themes were those of redemption, freedom and deliverance. And if there is any doubt about that, one need simply read a description of the Passover Seder to recognize its ties not only to Christ’s mission on Earth, but to the significance of the Last Supper.

So yeah, it’s 35 degrees and the flurries are flying on the day before Easter. But let’s not blame it on the pagans. Let’s just honor the more significant ties to the prophetic foundation of Christ’s connection to the Passover and all that it meant to the Jewish nation and its promised Messiah. In that light, you can read this story about the date for Easter and realize that its slippery date is the least of our worries. The most debilitating aspect of Easter to our faith has nothing to do with eggs and bunnies and rot-your-teeth-out candy.

The worst thing about Easter these days is that it doesn’t seem to matter at all.

More on that tomorrow …

In its ongoing mission to try to discredit any religious belief as the deluded imaginings of a of people who cannot deal with reality, the scientific community has a new “theory” to promote. This Reuter’s story cites:

Benny Shanon, a psychology professor at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, who [wrote] that the ancient Jews may have been high on a hallucinogenic plant when the prophet delivered the Ten Commandments down from Mount Sinai…

And what is the psychology professor’s basis for this claim?

Shanon wrote that he was very familiar with the affects of the ayahuasca plant, having “partaken of the … brew about 160 times in various locales and contexts.”

In summary, we should not believe the Biblical texts because they may have been written by someone who simply used mind-altering drugs to induce psychedelic hallucinations. But we should accept this hypothesis, despite having exactly zero evidence to support it, because it is being promoted by an individual who readily admits that he has used the very drug to which he refers.

Very convincing.

This harkens back to a book I read several years ago, Faith of the Fatherless, in which Paul Vitz argues that “projection theory” cuts both ways. Freud criticized belief in God as being untrustworthy on this psychological basis. In his The Future of an Illusion, Freud argued that …

… [all religious beliefs are] illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind … As we already know, the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection — for protection through love — which was provided by the father … thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fear of the dangers of life.

Religious believers have “projected” onto their fear of nature the illusion that a divine Father will protect them from it. But, Vitz argues convincingly, this is an ad hominem attack that can also go the other way. He spends the rest of the book showing that many of the most prominent atheists in history have had missing, absent, or abusive fathers. This fact could just as readily explain why the empty regret of having no father-figure in their lives could offer a psychological explanation for disbelief in a father-figure like God.

Touche.

Vitz’s point, unlike those who dismiss religious belief for psychological reasons, is not to write off atheists as just being psychologically defective. What he shows is that arguing either way does not address the actual evidence, or lack of evidence, for God. Either argument is a way to avoid the evidence by simply attacking the person making the claim. Both ways may be interesting to those who agree with a particular point of view, but neither way proves anything about whether God actually exists or operates in the real world.

Which is why we have no reason to accept the drug induced theory offered by Dr. Shanon. When it comes to the reasonableness of believing in God, psychologists are not very reliable or productive in their contributions to the debate.