a paradigm for the journey

When you place your kids on a school bus, you take for granted that the bus driver is trustworthy and will get your children to school. When you eat at a restaurant, you assume that the cook is not out to poison you. When you are experiencing a blind spot and another driver assists you across a busy intersection, you presume without proof that he or she is well-meaning. Though there times when your expectations may be inaccurate, generally speaking you accept them. You operate, in other words, in accordance with certain assumptions or presuppositions. It happens all of the time, probably more often than you realize. Not only is this the way we do many things, but it is unavoidable and normally helpful. Until a presupposition is invalidated, we accept it as true. Through experience, our best assumptions are confirmed and our worst ones discarded.

In order to appreciate any approach, it is important to understand some of the ideas, the presuppositions, that guide such efforts. Though I hope that my assumptions are substantiated through what I say, do, and write, others must decide whether this is in fact the case, that is, whether my presuppositions are indeed reasonable and worthy of additional exploration. Among other factors, these are some of the ideas that help pave the way.

• When it comes to knowledge claims, it is important to acknowledge the tension between knowing and not knowing.

The human condition is marked by knowledge and ignorance. Some things defy us, and other things are fairly clear. What’s more, this knowing and not knowing penetrate one another. Thus, while we know many things, we know nothing with flawless precision. Likewise, we are often ignorant, but often our ignorance is not absolute, and even when we acknowledge it, we still recognize that we know at least one thing, namely, that we are ignorant. Knowledge and ignorance work in tandem, each playing a role in our quest to make sense of life, the world, and faith. To approach faith with only one of these features leads to imbalance. On the one hand, if we assume, as many do, that we can have arrive at something approaching perfect knowledge, we close ourselves off from future discovery and yield to arrogance. On the other hand, if we assume, as many do, that we cannot know anything of substance, we likewise succumb to a pompous attitude and block the path to new insights. Of course the exact proportion of what we can and cannot know will vary, and it is difficult to decipher where the quest for knowledge reaches an impasse and mystery begins. But our lack of precision does not eliminate the reality and importance of these components. Whatever else is true, the quest to grasp truth must be viewed through this prism, and we should expect to understand certain things about ourselves and the world, while remaining humble and open to change.

• As human beings, we are built for faith.

What I mean by this is that we must, of necessity, act in a manner that requires that we trust. Our trust may be in other people, things that we’ve received from others, previous experience, or a host of other things. But, in any case, we are forced to believe, to assume, to take for granted, the trustworthiness of many things. As mentioned above, when we place our children on a bus, eat food at a restaurant, trust a stranger to direct us through a dangerous intersection, or many other things, we are in effect placing our trust in another. This does not mean that all of our faith commitments are valid, for often they are not. Nor does it entail a naive acceptance of whatever it is that tickles one’s fancy. Indeed, there are many occasions in which additional information, research, and experience cause us to change our views. The point we mustn’t miss, though, is that we accept many things by faith. This is an inevitable part of the way we are built as human beings. While many factors influence our faith decisions, the decisions themselves are neither inappropriate nor anti-intellectual. We are all believers; the key issues are what we believe and whether or not our beliefs are reasonable, realistic, and sensible.

• Since everything is ultimately filtered through the human interpreter, it is important to recognize what is wrong and right with us.

As human experience tells us, humanity can be described in favorable and unfavorable terms. In fact it is not simply that we can locate examples of good bad around us but that all of us are inherently inclined to both positive and negative elements of character. Thus, our thoughts, beliefs, and actions are a combination of excellence and that which is deplorable. To describe human beings in totally negative terms is to ignore or minimize those traits that demonstrate nobility. To emphasize merely the better features is to neglect the reality that our motives and actions are often questionable or even despicable. Both grandeur and depravity characterize all men and women, being part and parcel of what it means to be human in our world. This tells us that our ability to interpret, to understand, to locate truth, is both possible but hampered. We are intellectually, morally, and spiritually handicapped by our foolish disposition. Likewise, we are emboldened and hopeful due to our honorable tendencies. If we are going to account for these very human traits, we must proceed with a combination of confidence and humility. What’s more, we might also seek the assistance of others, knowing that they, too, are a strange combination of the same attributes. Perhaps, as well, we will look to the ultimate “Other” as we seek answers, direction, and wisdom.

• It is essential to pursue not only truth but also goodness and wisdom.

One of the inherent dangers when discussing spiritual things is neglecting to see that life is more than a debate to determine whose theory is right. While we cannot escape the issue of truth, truth’s goal, if you will, includes the pursuit of goodness and wisdom. Of course the best proponents of any view realize that the accurate assessment of truth ought to produce concomitant changes in thinking and behavior. Unfortunately, however–and due, in great part to the previously discussed “dark features” of humanity–we all too often miss the point and neglect to display the wisdom we espouse. A better approach, I think, is to recognize the need not only for correct ideas and properly demonstrated claims, essential as these are, but also for living with discernment, integrity, inspiration, and authenticity. Indeed, ultimately, these cannot be separated, for just as life is an embodiment of our cherished beliefs, so our viewpoints undergird and promote right living. The thing to understand here is that all worthy pursuits are inextricably linked to the worthy expression of their highest ideals. Truth leads to goodness and wisdom, even as goodness and wisdom prompt the search for truth and provide the lense through which truth is more readily received.

• The pursuit of ultimate reality or truth is a personal venture.

By this I mean that it involves people, namely human beings and, if you accept the possibility of a greater reality, a divine person. Without elaborating on such issues as an the orthodox commitment to a plural Godhead (i.e., the trinity or triunity of God), it is enough to say that a Christian conception of truth involves the person(s) of God. And, in Christian parlance, this points us in the direction of the person Jesus. If the narratives about Jesus are even remotely accurate and if his claims are examined carefully, it’s hard to avoid the implications. The way he handled himself, the manner in which he responded to unfair attacks, the words he spoke, the deeds he performed, the encouragement and forgiveness he offered, and the claim that he conquered our worst foe–all of these indicate that there is something special about Jesus. To put it plainly, there is something unique about this carpenter's son. If nothing else made sense about a Christian worldview, Jesus alone would compel us to consider him. And he, of course, is a person, a person whom we can investigate and, if he is the one he claimed to be, a person we can seek. If I might paraphrase, he put it this way: “Seek Me, and you will find me.” The point here is not to compare and contrast Jesus with other religious figures, though that is certainly a worthy endeavor. And I recognize, of course, that not all will accept my suppositions. But that’s not the point. Though I commend him to you, my primary intent is to show that there just might be a personal side to this apologetic agenda. Truth is an idea, a concept, a viewpoint, but it is also a person. It might be a good idea, in other words, when looking for truth, to be open to the possibility that there is another (divine) person in the room with us, a person we might seek.

Conclusion

These are among the thoughts that influence my thinking and guide much of what I say, do, and write. These ideas–and others could be added–help form the basis for much of what flows forth from me. I believe they are consistent with a Christian worldview and allow for a perspective that broadly matches the world in which we live. That is, they reflect the notion that we are divine image makers, marred by rebellion, searching for both what is right and what works, yearning for the transcendent, for One in whom we can place our trust and for whom we can live our lives. While admitting my own shortcomings and blind spots, these ideas are one person's effort to facilitate this pursuit and satisfy this yearning.

the sheer complexity of things (additional thoughts on ID)

In a reply to comments made on the previous post on ID, I scribbled down a few things that (with a couple of minor changes) I would like to reproduce here.

When it come to the notion of intelligent design and in light of the sheer complexity of many living things (which Darwin himself was willing to admit on certain occasions), I am somewhat astounded that many Darwinists are so quick to dismiss this complexity or else dogmatically characterize it as merely “apparent.” It simultaneously amuses and saddens me that we can so easily re-frame that which gives every appearance of design, in order to, I suppose, take God out of the equation.

On a related note, which is consistent with my broadly Christian worldview and, I think, fits life as most of us know it, it is my opinion that for a theory, idea, or body of facts, to be received, it must be accessible to most people. To the degree that something is truly relevant to know, it ought to make sense to common folks.

Now, please don’t misunderstand. I am not talking about taking polls to decide truth or basing our claims on political correctness. God forbid! Nor am I denying that non-experts can know a truth sufficiently, while experts know it at a deeper level. I’m simply saying that one does not have to be an expert in everything to understand the truth. While experts do indeed have a greater understanding about certain matters, we can learn a lot from non-experts, as well. Sometimes, however, elitists promulgate the idea that people should embrace their views simply on the basis of trust; that is, we can trust the experts to lead us down the right path. A better approach, in my opinion, would be to still utilize and appreciate expertise but never in such a way that the experts become the scientific version of the Pharisees (i.e., the self-proclaimed religious experts of Jesus’ day). Some Darwinists, and some Christians, as well, seem to miss this point. The important thing to convey here is my belief that if something is worth believing, and if God has placed both truth and truth-detectors (i.e., us) here, somehow the public at large will be able to grasp it. Part of the reason why people accept belief in God (and see his imprint) is due to the fact that this makes perfect sense of numerous aspects of the world in which we live. This human tendency should not be dismissed, for–in its best form–it may prove to be an outworking of an impulse that is consistent with reality. Of course the research must continue, and the facts must be interpreted honestly. But if we are all philosophically driven, as I believe we are, this seemingly (only apparent?) intuitive awareness of a divine imprint may be something worth considering.

In saying all this, I am not at all arguing against continued research and debate. Nor am I embracing every statement made by an ID expert simply because it fits my theory. All I’m saying is that some of the attempts to create a scenario in which incredibly complex features of human beings were supposedly created by blind chance and without any help from an information provider, seems a stretch. Most people know this intuitively. Thus, whatever the outcome of ID in history, I truly find it hard to imagine that this amazingly complex universe in which we live just happened to be. This is one of my general presuppositions. I may be wrong, and I am reasonably open to altering my assumptions. Still, these are my views, and I hold them with a measure of confidence. Indeed, I think it is reasonable, defensible, and legitimately appealing to do so.

Note: I should mention here that science is not my area of expertise, per se. I’ve operated in this realm on many occasions, but my personal focus has been in areas of theology, philosophy, postmodern studies, apologetics, and related fields. This emphasis has both influenced my approach to ID (and everything else), even as my research has (I believe) helped shape my views. In my opinion, current opinions (what we currently maintain) and openness to discovery (new insights, etc.) must be held in tension. I’m not sure if I do this, but it is my intent. :-)

intelligent design

Intelligent Design (ID)–it’s in the news and on the minds of many. But, as the recent Dover case demonstrates, there are still many misconceptions about the concept of design, and there is strong political opposition, often governed by fear, to the teaching of design within secular educational institutions.

A part of the problem, I think, is that some are skeptical about the motives of those involved in the Intelligent Design movement, thinking that ID is nothing more than a dressed up version of creationism. Thus, or so the thinking goes, ID advocates are trying to sneak religion in the back door and foist their views on an unsuspecting public. Of course there will always be individuals who attach themselves to various views, and not all of these are the most desirable folks to have in your camp. But politicians, of all people, should know this is the case and should not judge the merits of a view on its worst (and, sometimes, craziest) proponents. What truly matters here is that ID is not at all a religious phenomenon in the traditional sense of the word. Though you will obviously find a variety of different religious beliefs among ID adherents, ID itself arises from an examination of the evidence. Indeed, it is truly preposterous to accuse ID advocates of some type of hidden religious agenda. The overwhelming majority of the those in the ID movement are driven by academic motives and a desire to simply follow the truth wherever it leads. The research that has been conducted at a variety of levels is impressive and represents a genuine challenge to the status quo. Indeed, the credentials and the research conducted would never have been questioned had the views proposed been more in line with the dominant view on origins.

What has taken place is nothing short of a rhetorical campaign designed by Darwinists (and not by chance) to create in the mind of the public a view that is a caricature of the truth. There has been an onslaught of unsubstantiated claims and an ongoing effort to present ID and its proponents in the worst light possible. So, you keep on repeating the same phrases (“Those ID advocates are just creationists in scientific garb.”), you continue to make overstatements concerning your own views (“Everyone who knows anything realizes that Darwinian evolution is the only reasonable view.”), and you frame the debate in such a way that ID proponents appear opposed to ongoing research.

The true story of ID is quite different than what is often promulgated in certain circles. Not only are many of the researchers individuals of the highest integrity, not only have they continued to produce a body of work that is substantial, well-documented, and scientifically viable, but there certain general features of ID that challenge the reigning paradigm and may lead to a revolution of sorts in origins research. For instance, ID has produced substantial evidence of irreducible complexity, the idea that biological systems at the microscopic level are so intricately constructed and so interdependent (all the parts working together are necessary in order for the system to actually function) that there is no current (or conceivable?) Darwinian pathway that might have produced such design. Likewise, there is no real mechanism that has been tested and proven that can account for life’s origin and the production of self-replicating systems, which are needed if evolution is to continue. Also, there is a clear absence of many transitional forms. If you plan on going from, say, A to Z, you would expect to find a lot of B’s, C’s and so forth in the geological record, but this is not at all what we see. Then, there is the inability of natural selection to explain some of the more complex aspects of biological change. While natural selection does indeed play a role in micro-evolution, it seems ill equipped to account for the extremely grand examples of design and change.

But why, I ask myself, the need to misrepresent? Why the near dread of anything that challenges the current theory? Why the frantic desire to maintain a Darwinian-only approach? You would think that the mere mention of design will send our institutions into some sort of dark age and that the design inference will spell the ruin of millions. These reactions are, of course, preposterous and not at all an accurate assessment of potential ID inclusion. Even so, this is not the real issue, for is it not the evidence, the best we can see it and interpret it, that should lead the way? Does not the truth form the basis of our theories?

For some reason a truly reasonable and greatly substantiated grouping of discoveries and inferences are disallowed, and I don’t get it. I have my own theories, of course, but I’m also taken aback by the sheer ignorance, hypocrisy, arrogance, and fury that has dominated far too much of the current discussion.

To be honest, I don’t think we should be overly concerned about which view wins the day. So long as we’re being intellectually honest, I really don’t care, frankly, which view is correct or most likely true. If natural selection plus chance plus time can explain everything about our universe, so be it. If Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient to make sense of the world in which we live, that’s okay. If, on the other hand, other forces are evident and if new theories are more consistent with the data, that ought to be fine, as well. Let the truth have its sway.

It seems to me that the propaganda originating in certain circles has proved intellectually debilitating, and rhetoric has blocked the path to academic inquiry and creative scientific investigation. Indeed, if ID is even remotely accurate, when and where, exactly, should we give it a voice? If not in a science classroom, then where? If in a philosophy class, will those opposed to ID also stand against the promulgation of ID in that context, too? And, even if it is allowed to flourish within some non-scientific framework, are we okay with allowing ID theorists to present their case, which is largely scientific, within a classroom that is not a science classroom? While I am strongly in favor of holistic education (with various ideas affecting the teaching of any particular subject), I find it strange that the scientific-based findings of ID would be allowed anywhere except a science classroom. The absurdities continue to abound, and few seem even willing to consider the ramifications.

Then, of course, there is the broader issue at stake. Are we actually willing to allow for the possibility that a body of knowledge exists in the world, something that is based in solid and ongoing research, that is simply not allowed to be discussed? How can truths exist and not be taken up and discussed by the dispensers of truth? Furthermore, do we actually believe that today’s students, those who are already quite adept at discussing various topics that would make many of their parents blush, will be damaged by an open discussion about the possibility of intelligent design? This, once again, is foolishness. Indeed, I think that nearly every young (and old) person is creative and resilient enough to consider varying theories and allow for the examination of competing thoughts. Is that not, in great measure, what education is about? Would it not be a travesty–especially if grounded in misinformation and irrational fear–to ignore whatever insights are available about a subject as grand and relevant as origins?

[Note: the Issue here is not actually evolution, per se, Many ID proponents clearly believe in evolution and are willing--at certain points--to accept some of what Darwin taught. The problem they have, however, is that Darwinian evolution does not explain many of the more profound features of human origins and decent.]

exploring the spiritual (or looking for God): Does it make any sense?

There are obviously various responses when it comes to matters of faith. Some discount spiritual things entirely, either ignoring or else rejecting (even attacking) all truth claims, while others assume their perspective is the right one. But across the spectrum, it seems we are all spiritually inclined. From atheists to agnostics, from traditional religious adherents to advocates of new-age spirituality, there is this impulse within us to seek “the Other.”

But is this impulse valid? Indeed, what is it about us that fits this assumption, that we are indeed spiritual creatures longing for something more. What follows are some general observations about human beings that point, I think, in a spiritual direction. These are not the only things that matter, but they do matter. These are some (not all of the) important things that hint at a core of spirituality all around and within us.

□ As already mentioned there seems to be an innate sense within all of us to reach out and beyond ourselves. There is among most (if not all) human beings a search for the transcendent. This might be interpreted merely as evidence of a natural law or it might seen as an indication of a deity. At the least, however, we must acknowledge this inward tendency to look beyond ourselves.

□ Likewise, and in keeping with the above, there is a general tendency to locate purpose in life. Of course this might simply be wishful thinking or some evolutionary survival trait, but most people act like it is more. In other words there is a perceived meaning to our existence.

□ The good that we encounter amplifies this purposefulness. And the bad, while certainly causing us to wonder about it all (i.e., How can a good God allow for such horrendous events?), also forces us to recognize that we are repelled by evil precisely because we sense that there must be some higher purpose that is being violated by the presence of evil. Even as evil feeds unbelief at one level, it also supports the contention that there is such a thing as evil in the first place. This, in a backward sort of way, actually confirms or is at least consistent with the notion of some higher purpose. Thus, the good and bad we encounter are indicators of life’s meaningfulness.

□ Along with what we’ve already said, there is clearly in all of us a sense of connection to fellow human beings. That is, we tend to gravitate to others. Though some are loners, and have a difficult time relating, the overwhelming majority of human beings long for relationships with one or (usually) more co-travelers. Once again, this fits the idea of reaching out, not only to things but to people. There is an undeniable personal feature to human existence.

□ If we are persons (which, of course, we are) and if we also sense a transcendent purpose (which we generally do), it just might be that our longings can only be satisfied by that which is both transcendent and personal. Throughout human history, this has often been another way of talking about God. Might we have been created for such a being?

□ The things and people that make us look for and embrace purpose indicate that we live in a world designed for us. Not only biologically or psychologically but, one might say, spiritually, we live in a universe that corresponds with our felt needs and desires. While not minimizing those aspects that run contrary to this purpose (e.g., the problem of evil), there are many things around us that are created to promote this relational, purposeful existence. From whence did they originate? Many have taken for granted that a supreme being must be the ultimate provider of such grand design and purpose.

□ In our best moments, we remain open to that which is good and true. That’s the way we are constructed as humans. Scientific discoveries, noble acts of philanthropy, selfless concern for others, and countless other endeavors are motivated by the pursuit of the good and the true. Are we open to a higher, divine reality? Are you?

All of the above ideas are consonant with the idea of a transcendent, personal reality. When combined with other features of humankind, they attest to the reasonableness of a theistic worldview and the sensibleness of those who choose to embrace this “Other,” who has (apparently) made us for himself. One ancient sage, speaking of this divine reality, said it this way: “Come to Me and be rescued, all of the earth.” The way we are made, the type of world in which we live, the trends of life–all of these and more seem to confirm the believability of this invitation. Who knows? Maybe we were born for this very purpose, to receive such an invitation.