Rob reacts to the letter

Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:47:04 +0100
Subject: Reaction to the letter for me

Hi Edward,

Many thanks for your letter. I've read it 3 times to have everything sink in but here's finally my reaction. First, a bit of background about me.

In no way do I consider myself a scientist. I've been having an academic education (Computer Science in Leiden) and advanced quite a bit in it but I did not finish it. For so far I could experience the academic life, it's been in the beta subjects.

Before leaving for the Netherlands (in 1990) I was a police lieutenant. For that I did a college level study in Suriname which was based slightly on the police academy in Apeldoorn (mostly law classes, especially penal law, and some generic and police specific courses). My latest function was as chief of the forensics department.

Since primary school I've been interested in Astronomy. This was a major determinant for making up my mind around part of the Christian faith, i.e. evaluating the historicity of the Genesis Creation. There are very few creationists that doubt the observation of the great distances of astronomical bodies. If we take the limited speed of light into account we get an age of the universe that does not correspond with the age we get when calculating the time that the Creation should have happened. There are currently 3 common replies to this (variable speed of light, "in situ" creation and Humphreys' "white hole cosmogony"), none of which are in line with observations or they present God as a deceiver. An interesting article on this is "The Current State of Creation Astronomy"¹ (the title is by heart) by Dr. Danny Faulkner from the Institute of Creation Research (www.icr.org).

Until about 2 years ago I considered myself an "evolutionary Christian", without seriously evaluating what that meant to me and without ever studying evolution. After having some talks with Perry² and my dad (who's a Catholic) I've been a bit more busy with studying, for the most part, Creation, the rejection of which caused my to question the faith in general. (If Creation was not historical but still written down as such, what else was incorrect?) I am aware that rejecting the Genesis Creation is an act of faith in itself, but it's grown to a sold conviction based on scientific arguments, combined with the fact that there are logically just as much arguments for the Genesis Creation as there are for "Last Wednesdayism" (i.e., the universe was created supernaturally on Wednesday last week and every memory you have from before that is part of the creation). In the mean time I considered myself a "theistic agnostic" (with which I meant: I don't know what's true but I think it's likely there's something more, possible the Christian message).

In a discussion with a few Reformed Christians³ I was confronted with the fact that I admitted not to know a lot about evolution but still defending it. This was a trigger for me to start really investigating the questions I had. I read up quite a bit about the evolutionary theory but also on the question of the likelihood of the actual existence of the Christian God. The most important resources I used ate the websites www.talkorigins.org, www.infidels.org and www.skepticsannotatedbible.com on one side and www.answersingenesis.org, www.icr.org and www.trueorigins.org on the other. Though my study hasn't finished by a long shot, especially regarding the historicity and meaning of Christ, the general trend is that it is increasingly hard for my to identify with the axioms of the Christian faith. I still consider myself an agnostic, though more of an atheistic one then a theistic one.

I'd like to summarize my major objections against the Christian teachings:

• Not applying the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity⁴ (these are about the first principles I learned in the Penal law courses at the police academy). There are a few examples in the old testament of the bible where children are punished for the sins of the parents. This violates subsidiarity. The other is violated by the fact that it is by definition impossible to commit enough evil in a finite time to have an infinite punishment that is proportional to that, however slight that punishment is. These two aspects are in direct conflict with what I expect of a just God. I am aware that justice is an earthly concept and that God is not bound to earth, but if we qualify God as just, loving etc. we can only do so in an earthly manner. We actually do apply earthly qualifications to God.
• The "omnimax" features that we attribute to God are internally in conflict. These features are "omnipotence" (being almighty), "omniprecence" (being present everywhere) and "omnibenevolence" (being ultimately loving)⁵. First, omniscience is in direct contradiction with free will which people are assumed to have, because free will would imply that I could do something that God could not anticipate and in that he would not be all-knowing. If he is then everything is pre-determined and then there is no real free will but acting out of a script. Regarding the latter attribute, I cannot imagine that a loving God would create me with the foreknowledge that I am doomed forever.
• The image of God that I've been raised with (a loving God who loves everyone) does not accord with some verses I've read in the bible, acts committed by of for God (e.g. Num. 31 and 2 Kings 2:23-25) or by people who are "to God's heart" (Psalms 137:9).
• The changing state of science tightens the gap for God. Studying evolution helped me to realize that. Even creationist literature does not doubt the validity of "micro evolution" (changes in the gene pool by natural and sexual selection, mutation, recombination and genetic drift). This is observed frequently in labs and in resistance of viruses to medicine. The origin of new species has also been observed, e.g. in plants. This is all that is needed for evolution. Furthermore, there are morphological and genetic (falsifiable!) pointers to common descent. E.g., a chimp is morphologically and genetically more similar to a human being than it is to a gorilla. If chimps and gorillas are considered to be apes, why aren't humans? Why is humanity special for God?

There are a few more (minor) questions I'm contemplating like contradictions between various biblical books and the monotheistic or polytheistic state of the trinity, but these are easier to handle than the mentioned points.

That was a pretty long introduction ;-) Sorry about that. While re-reading your letter I want to comment on a few points you mentioned.
I think the description you made of me is hitting the nail on the head. The starting point is a good one ;-)

I can come along with Newbigin just fine on his starting point that it is incorrect to qualify dogma as "stupid" and doubt as "smart". Both have their value. When it comes to finding the truth, then IMO dogma is the wrong tool for the job. For determining an initial opinion are get introduced to the material, it is the right tool. Ergo, there are a lot of scientific arguments that consider true dogmatically without redoing the scientific steps that lead to those arguments. For all I know, that is just as dogmatic as accepting the truth of the biblical history as told in old documents. I think I've just summarized Newbigin's 3 points here. If however the message contains gaps I don't think we should just wave it off by appealing to the authority of the messenger. Within the constraints of the plausibility structure that you use you should seek to fill the gap or rethink the truth. I assume that you agree with me that this is pretty common in scientific endeavors.

Regarding the 5 criticisms on the "observation" philosophy by Decartes and Kant I have the following remarks:
Points 1 and 2 are in one line of thought and I have no issues with those. With point 3 however I do have some issues. If the "theory of coincidence" is actively used in science I have failed to notice it until now. According to science the world is actually rationally explainable but not (only) based on coincidence. It is based on processes that are well known (think e.g. of gravity in forming planets, stars, galaxies and clusters, and natural and sexual selection in evolution). Of course coincidence has its place in those processes (like mutation and genetic drift in evolution) but it's only a part of a far bigger process. Newbigin's statement is ridiculously oversimplified. I have little to add to point 4, I agree with that one. In point 5 he's overreacting again. Objective knowledge does exist though it might not be as wide spread as some would expect. That objective knowledge is present in mathematics which is the basis for the beta sciences. E.g., I cannot imagine that one would have an own perspective on the following: the sum of the corners of a triangle in Euclidean space is 180 degrees. QED. So the conclusion that even measurable knowledge places a subjective claim on an objective truth is at the very least an oversimplification. You might make that an objective claim :)

I admit that I lost you a little om the part that about comparing scientific and christian traditions regarding the use of language and focusing on part of the observation.
I have to disagree with your statement that science has a hard time to critically examine itself. Ergo, the rivalry between, and urge to score of scientists id gigantic. One scientist will not refrain from utterly destroying the theory of a fellow scientist if that will gain him acceptance in the scientific community. That by definition creates an extremely critical social control.

I agree only partially with your professor. For some part science is indeed a faith, however I'd like to limit the scope of that statement to unfalsifiable science. Here we could think of alpha sciences (e.g. the fact that jurisdiction, i.e. the opinion of a famous legal author, is considered a source for justice) and of unprovable beta sciences (like string theory and abiogenesis).

I agree with you that science does not have an answer for everything because it limits itself to what is "reasonable". I think your conclusion from that, i.e. that science therefor does not accept anything higher than itself and therefor equates itself to God, is baseless.(Beta) sciences do not concern themselves with questions line that and do not rule out something higher. Of course there are individual scientists who do but that is an article of faith, no different than the assumptions of a Christian. It's also a given that the percentage of atheists among beta scientists is larger than among the general public but from a documentary I've learned that the percentage among scientists in general is close to the general average (based on U.K. data). Since science is carried by scientists it seems hard to me to persist in the notion that science rules out something higher.

I think the question about my faith has already been answered partially in the first part. I belief in the correctness of falsifiable (but as of yet unfalsified) science. Because I've hit a few walls (as explained above) which caused me to find an atheistic approach more plausible than a Christian one, I've come to doubt the authority of the bible. It's not an opened and shut case though and maybe it never will be. I estimate that I'll be busy for 2 or 3 more years to gain as many insights in the matter as possibly before reaching a personal conclusion. I appreciate mails like yours and talks with Perry, Armand and Iwan a lot ans they help me to gain various insights. You ended the letter by stating that you enjoyed writing it. Let me end by stating that I enjoyed reading it and reacting to it. I consider talks like this as very constructive and would like to continue it.

Regards,
Rob

1. this document is currently available via this link ↩
2. Perry is my brother ↩
3. These are highly conservative biblical literalists ↩
4. This seems to have a slightly different meaning in English than I was thought at the police academy. I understood it as a punishment being only applicable to the person who committed a crime. ↩
5. I failed to mention "omniscience" in the original mail ↩