Fundamental Astuteness

The Essence of Astuteness: Non-Partisan Intellectual Honesty

Archive for the ‘Logic’ Category

Great Quotes: Ludwig Von Mises

leave a comment »

The aforementioned individual was a widely acclaimed economist and political philsopher of his time. Born in 1881 in what is now Liviv, Ukraine, he became a great leader in the classical liberal movement and in advancing the Austrian School of Economic though (libertarianism and extremely laissez faire economics, respectively). Justifying his opinion that government ought not to be in the business of protecting people from their own foolishness, he opined in his great book Human Action, as follows:
Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous and habit forming drugs. But once a principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government’s benevolent providence to the protection of the individual’s body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music?

The passage struck a chord with for the same reason it did for the great skeptic and libertarian Michael Shermer, who said of the passage that it  “…resonated with me because his analogue from the physical to the ideological is so effective in conveying the central message of freedom and liberty[.]”


Michael Shermer on the Problem of Evil

leave a comment »

My favorite skeptic, Michael Shermer, has written a book titled “How We Believe: The Search for God in the Age of Science”. I’m enjoying it so far. The critics seem to like it too. “Well researched, comprehensive, and persuasive” “This is an important book” “Great read…!”

I’ve always been fascinated by the problem of evil. I assume at least most of my small readership is familiar with the issue. The question basically is: “How can an all good God and all powerful God allow evil in this world and still be sinless?”

I’m still thinking and reading on the topic, and I hope to write more about it soon. What I have concluded is that despite the apparent conundrums inolved with the problem, I am not yet convinced that the existence of pain and suffering justifies the rejection of God. Nevertheless, I’m still intruiged by other people’s reasoning and justifications for their worldview, and I now present an excerpt from page five of his book mentioned above:

“To this day I have not heard an answer to the Problem of Evil that seems satisfactory. As with the Problem of Free Will, most answers involve complicated twists and turns of logic and semantic wordplay. One answer, for example, is based on the fundamental assumption of a stone so heavy he cannot lift it. Likewise, God cannot be encompassed in the in the subset of evil. Evil, like heavy stones, exist independently of the larger set of God, even though remaining in that set. Another riposte involves explaining specific historical evils, like the Holocaust, where one answer is that “humans committed these evil acts, not God.” But this avoids the problem altogether: Either God allowed Nazis to kill Jews, in which case He is not omnibenevolent, or God could not prevent Nazis from killing Jews, in which case he is not omnipotent.”

Others have found the answer. I hope to find it too.

Written by Astuteness

September 11, 2008 at 5:01 pm

On Faithful Skepticism and Rational Faith

with 5 comments

It is my observation that the mainstream media and academia stigmatize faith as something intellectually inferior and antithetical to both science and reason. This is not always true of every respected scientist. Some, like Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic Magazine and the one to whom I also like to refer to as “my favorite skeptic”) have a less villifying take on faith in general, and the Christian Faith in particular. Still, atheists like George H. Smith boldy assert that “Christian theism must be rejected by any person with even a shred of respect for reason”. Websites too, like Importance of Philosophy make assertions such as “The result of using faith consistently is the complete inability to think.” Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

I disagree.

To either replace their faith and justify their rejection of it, skeptics turn to other pinnicles on which to view truth and analyze the world. Some go all out in support of Science. Its all about science. What do emperical experiments tell us. What’s happening in the labratory. Others are all about reason. “This is rational.” “That is not.” “If God created everything, then God created evil. And since evil exists, and acording to the principle that our works define who we are, the we can assume God is evil.”

Media and acadamia potray these alternatives to faith (reason, science, etc) as exclusive to faith. “Science and Faith are not compatible” or “Reason and Faith cannot be reconciled”. The implication is that if you have faith, then you are not rational. You are not scientific. You wonder in the wastelands of stupidity and cluelessnes. Such implications are used, particuarly in our college campuses, as tools by which to destroy people’s religious faith.

And it works. The Christian Church doesn’t do very well educating its people on how to defend the faith. The de-conversion rate of college students is at an all time high. So when our young people go to college, who wants to be called “irrational” “stupid” “clueless” etc? And so people fall away from the faith or cower from the mighty intellecutals in fear because someone convinced them that faith is inherently exclusive to the other faculties of reason, science, and so on.

Part of the problem may be that we let our opponents define what faith is. And when that happens, they are more than happy to define it in the negative. “Faith is the opposite of reason” or “Faith is antithetical to science”.

But is faith merely a dictionary antonym for intellectual glory?

I think not.

I propose that we as Christians take our definition of faith from the 19th book of the New Testament, the Book of Hebrews, the 11th chapter, and the first verse, which says: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

In other words, strictly speaking, faith is merely the belief in something that we have not directly seen or experienced firsthand. That’s it.

If this is the case, then it has far reaching implications into whether or not faith should be stigmatized as something inherently irrational. Because if it is true that faith is merely belief in something not directly experienced, then everyone has faith.

I have not been to England. But I have strong faith that it exists. I haven’t seen it first hand, but Rick Steves has apparantly been there and made a movie about it. The name appears in my history books and all of them agree on the general size and location of the country on the map. Its a well grounded faith too, because there is good evidence for it.

Scientists have not actually seen macro-evolution happen. No one has gone to the zoo for a few million years and watched a monkey turn from ape to homo-sapien. Its a matter of faith because they’re believing in something that they have not actually seen.

In light of this, the argument in our culture ought not to be about whether faith is inherently dangerous or evil; everyone has faith; the argument ought to be over who has the best faith supported by experience, reason, science, and logic.

As a historical faith, Christianity has, in my experience, been able to meet the burden of proof to my satisfaction such that I am convinced that, while theism and christianity are not proveable with mathmatical certainty, the archeological, scientific, philosophical, and historical evidences make faith in God and the Bible a reasonable state of existence not outside the realms of science and rationality.

The evidence that makes this so will be explored on this blog as time goes on. But for now, remember: Faith is not irrational in and of itself. Everyone has to one varying degree or another in various fields of thought and persuasion. The debate ought to be over which faith is best supported by our deductions and observations.

I conclude as I often like to do with the great quote from the great Voddie Baucham:

“Is that your final answer? I hope its not. voddie-baucham.jpgLet me give you an answer to that question that I believe is better than ‘I was raised that way’ or its better than “Well I’m Southern Baptist and that’s the way we believe’ or its better than “I tried it, and it worked for me” Let me tell you why I choose to believe the Bible. I don’t believe the Bible because I was raised that way—because I wasn’t. I don’t choose to believe the Bible because I tried it and it worked for me. My mother’s Buddhism worked for her—that’s why she was a Buddhist! I need something more than just ‘because it works’. Here’s the answer—I’ll give it to you and unpack it for you:

I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report [of] supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claimed that their writing are divine rather than human in origin.”



Missing links in the Associated Press report…

with 4 comments

I know I promised my small readership that I would develop more central themes and issues for my blog to cover, but tonight I must dissent from myself just this once…

Those who know me may be aware, to varying degrees, of my intense skepticism of evolution. Indeed, my previous article on evolution issues, one of the most visited posts on this website, I think leaves no doubt as to my position of this matter. There seems to be no end to the stream of evidence and logic that consistently works against Darwinism, and no end in sight for the consistency with which the dissent from Darwinism is suppressed and ignored by major media and scientific outlets.

Although I mostly limit my research to topics like Christian Apologetics, Politics, and Public Policy, it is not unheard of for me to find myself intruiged by some scientific discovery or anecdote. Such was my situation this evening that brought back several reflections on Darwinism and media reporting in general as relates to that theory (note “theory” not “fact”)

My attention was immediatlely drawn to this article written by the Associated Press and linked to the front page of The yahoo headline read “New Flatfish fossils solve missing link in evolutionary theory”.

The article explained that “Some odd-looking fish fossils discovered in the bowels of several European museums may help solve a lingering question about evolutionary theory, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday. The 50 million-year-old fossils — which have one eye near the top of their heads — help explain how flatfish such as flounder, sole and halibut developed the strange but useful trait of having both eyes on one side.”

The article then went on to describe various facts of interest that made for a decently written article in many respects, but even as I was reading it, two things immediately came to mind:

First: Will “missing links” really provide that panacea that evolutionists are so quietly desperate for?

I think not. While the absence is missing links is hailed by the oft-supressed skeptics of evolution, I think there is little chance that finding a even a substantial number of “missing links” will prove anything or convince anybody. As a point of debate, it is too easy for the creationist/intelligent design advocate to argue three things, to start with. First, say something like “The presence of ‘missing’ links does not prove anything for  the evolutionist because it is just as reasonable to say that God created many similar things on day one (or two, etc) without evolution”. Second, a legitimate point could be made by saying that “the similarity between two things does not prove the ancestry of the objects in question”. I find two similar fossils. What does that prove? One thing, and one thing only: That two fossils look the same (further investigation might show that there are those who believe it proves more). That’s it. To say as much as Darwinists want to would be to commit the logical fallacy of non-sequitar–‘it does not follow’. Just because a Honda hubcap is compatible with a Chevy rim doesn’t prove that Chevy evolved from Honda 60 million years ago. Thirdly, the people concerned with propelling this message as a support of Darwinism do so while making an important mistake by failing to differentiate between macro and micro evolution. There’s an important difference; micro evolution is something that everyone, whether Darwinist or not, are perfectly aware of and at peace with. Micro evolution refers to small changes that can occur over time within a specified species. Breeding dogs will create diversity in kind–retrievers, labs, pointers, setters, shuitzou, etc. Nobody disuputes this. The point is, whatever you started with, you still have. We started out with dogs, and we still have dogs…just different variations of the same creature.

The debate comes in over macro-evolution. This refers to the idea that, given enough time (or chance) huge changes within species by combining many many small changes together will result in an entirely different entity altogether (like from microbes, to monkeys, to humans). No substantial missing link establishing this branch of evolution has been established; and when they have been in the past, no great length of time has passed before they are discredited. Do we have fossils showing how a whale graduated from whale-ness into lizard-ness? There is no such thing. And even if one were established, we would simply refer to the first argument presented in this post.

So two branches of evolution: Micro-evolution, which states that small changes within a species will occur while still maintaining fundamental characteristics, and Macro-evolution, which states that large changes will occur over time that result in an entirely different species. Creationists agree with the small changes, and evolutionists are hard pressed to substantiate the historicity of the large ones.

Does the article presented by the Associated Press on the front page of Yahoo! do anything to resolve this struggle and give a victory point to the Darwinists? By no means. Notice that the article refers primarily to the fact that some flatfish had one eye, and some had two. Does this represent huge change such that we end up with entirely different species? No.  It simply substantiates something both sides of the creation/evolution debate agree on…that changes within a species overtime can occur. But notice that we still have the same fundamental being: fish. This does nothing to resolve the chief point of dispute between creationists and evolutionists, although the media made the article headline seem to hope we’d be led to believe otherwise.

Speaking of the media leads me to my second major reflection of this post. While the first one had to do with the actual evidence and logic of the evolution debate, this second thought concerns the media only. Look through the article carefully, and see if you don’t notice something:

There is no dissent presented in the article at all.

No alternative viewpoint. Usually the media inserts phrases like “but critics say” or “…but according to…”. This is especially true for political coverage, but it is the mark of every semi-balanced media report. Yet no such regular and essential feature appears here. I would think it should, since many qualified authorities would differ with the point of view presented in this article. According to this report from WorldNetDaily, (in response to an assertion by PBS that “virtually every scientist in the world believes the [Darwinian] theory to be true”) over 600 PhD scientists signed a document expressing a “skeptic[ism] of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

“Examination…should be encouraged”? I think so, but I guess the fair and balanced media didn’t get the message. Why? I’m not aware. Ask Bernard Goldberg

Written by Astuteness

July 9, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Liberty is not unlimited…

with 7 comments

Liberty was a word I heard often as I researched the candidacy of Ron Paul this past year. I heard it not only from him, but also from his supporters–on the streets, at rallies, on blogs, and on youtube. “We must defend liberty”; “Liberty…its the most important thing”. Or “The liberty to do whatever we want as long as we don’t infringe on the rights of others”.

It sounded great. And to a substantial extent, I think the cause of liberty is a legitimate one. People should be able to act freely. We should have a free society. But a nagging question kept coming to mind: Is Liberty really the transcendental value that subsumes all else? Should liberty theoretically be defended at all costs? I’m still trying to decide where the proper balance is. As I think on these things, I find one passage written by Rousas D. Rushdooney very captivating. He writes in 1984, in his book titled “Law and Liberty” that:

“When we are told that there can be no laws against _____________[insert any perceived social ill, like pornography, drugs, adultery] without endangering liberty, we must challenge their claim to be interested in liberty. There is no area where freedom is unlimited. Take freedom of speech, for example: no man has the right to slander others, nor do our laws allow him the liberty to do so at will. Neither do we allow any man the liberty to shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. Freedom of speech does not give any man the right to walk into the floor of Congress and speak his mind. His liberty is limited no only as to where he can say it but also as to what he says. This does not mean that I lack freedom to speak my mind, if it be done decently and in order.

Freedom of press means the liberty to publish, but it does not mean liberty to publish libelous statements, nor does it mean that any man can demand that his freedom of press be subsidized to enable him to publish. A man has the liberty to publish if he provides the cost of publication or interests a publisher in doing so. Moreover, the contents of what is published are also subject to limitations. Libel has already been cited. No man has the right or liberty to publish materials violating the privacy of others. There are all kinds of legitimate and necessary restrictions on every kind of liberty a man has, and these are necessary for the maintenance of liberty.”

As mentioned above, I think the cause for more liberty and less government is for the most part a legitimate one. I am an ardent supporter of almost everyone of Ron Paul’s ideals. The question at issue is: “How far should that liberty be extended and how do we decide at what point it starts and where it ends?”

The usual libertarian response is well placed from a strategic and rhetorical standpoint. Their reply usually goes something like this: “A person should enjoy every liberty he can attain, provided he does not infringe on the liberty of others to act freely in their own right” or something along those lines. Basically, exercise your rights, as long as you don’t violate the rights of others.

I like this explanation, but (aside from the fact that I’m not sure its a biblical perspective, something I’ll articulate another time) I’m not sure it really solves the debate or saves any time. For as soon as these words fall on the dialogue, the debate is not ended with satisfaction to both sides. The argument immediately shifts to issue of what constitutes a violation of another person’s rights?

At this point, someone will try to differentiate the difference between positive and negative rights, saying that people have the right exercise their negative rights, while they are not necessarily entitled to their positive rights. But again, this only starts the process over again: What exactly constitutes “negative” rights? Who says that am entitled to this set of rights but not to another?  A traffic light violates my freedom to move through the intersection when I see fit. Yet, to not have a traffic light would endanger the public safety, thus, as many people as will go through the intersection in the absence of a traffic light, the same number of individual rights will be violated…the right to life and safety of other individual besides myself is negated by the absence of a traffic signal.

But (playing the part of devil’s advocate for a moment) I should have the right to go through the intersection when I want to. So, who’s rights and interests should win the debate? Now the debate simply shifts again: Whether or not, when in conflict, individualism should be valued over collectivism. I have an individual right to traverse the intersection, something that the traffic light delays, and a collection of other members of society who will be traveling through that intersection have a right to public safety and life.

Thus, libertarian rationalism, which adores rationalistic, logical thought process’ to come to its conclusions, seems to falter; for it cannot come up with an enduring, transcendental standard by which to govern society. For any libertarian who asserts that “these are the rights you are entitled to, while these are not” will always be hopelessly challenged to explain how he came to his conclusion about what rights are more important than others (My right to move when I want vs. society’s right to a traffic signal in the interest of public safety), and why when in conflict, this should be valued over that–the traffic light and individualism vs. collectivism being prime examples of this never ending cycle of argumentation.

At this point, having convinced myself that rationally engineered rights can never be rationally clarified (the never ending circle of argumentation referred to in preceding paragraphs), it seems to me that the best way to conclusively address the issue is to adopt an unconventional strategy: Espouse the cause of liberty in theory, and use the Bible and the biblical worldview it provides to clarify what rights should be enjoyed and what rights should be limited. On this basis, issues seem to fall into place: Free speech, yes–but since the 9th commandment says “though shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” we justify laws against slander. How did property rights vs. eminent domain come to be such an issue from the 1600’s on in the western world? Because religious reformers influenced policy makers who applied the principle “thou shalt not steal” as a limitation on government action. Thus was born the notion that government should be limited in taking land for whatever purpose, and that if it must use the land, it should be paid for.

Adopting the biblical worldview as a standard political mindset and policy guideline will no doubt precipitate a storm of criticism and scandal. It would “forcing our will” on others. How bigoted. But in reality, doing so is no worse than what the Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Republican, or Humanist does every time they vote in the legislature. All law and policy necessarily springs forth from some foundational mindset (call it religion, political philosophy, mindset, etc.) held by each person, and thus, every politician–foundational presuppositions about the world and the humanity it contains; about the origin, purpose, and destiny of mankind as a whole. Christian worldview is one of those mindsets…it just happens to be called religion, while every other philosophy enjoys a more agreeable title–Marx called his Marxism “science” and my libertarian friends call their mindset a “Philosophy of Liberty”.

Now some will cringe from this challenge because they assume that because biblical worldview is found to be dismissed in politics as irrelevant because its religious it’s therefore not relevant to politics because most people in politics don’t think it belongs in the political debate.

Yet the majority’s lack of belief in something does not equate to making it irrelevant. Just because people don’t believe you when you cite the biblical worldview as a justification for action doesn’t mean you must leave it behind when you work in politics. Republicans don’t believe in the Democratic Party, yet the democrats are very successful in implementing their agenda step by step. Perhaps an analogy will help bring this into perspective:

You are walking through a city in the Great State of Texas. You, being the great citizen you are, have your concealed carry permit and a Spingfield .40  caliber X3 subcompact pistol in your back pocket. A thug steps in front of you, waves his knife with meaning, and demands your money or your life. But being the sturdy Texan you are, you snatch out your Springfield and say “Sir, I have a Spingfield .40  caliber X3 subcompact pistol that delivers 30,000 kinetic foot pounds of force on impact! Do reconsider your present course of action or proceed at your own risk! A bullet does carry farther than a knife!” But instead of being deterred like you thought he would be, he instead says “Well, I don’t believe in your gun…” And with this astounding revelation, you think “I can’t believe it. He doesn’t believe me” so you throw down your Spingfield .40  caliber X3 subcompact pistol take off running.

So you go home and do some research. You discover, (using, of course, wikipedia) that guns are indeed very effective. You find a study that documents these facts and effects, print it off, place it in your other back pocket, and start back across the city again, carrying your Spingfield .40  caliber X3 subcompact pistol. Lo and behold, the same crook appears in front of you, waving his knife and demanding your money or your life! So you pull out your Springfield .40 caliber subcompact X3 and exclaim: “Sir, I have a Spingfield .40  caliber X3 subcompact pistol that delivers 30,000 foot pounds of force on impact! Do reconsider your present course of action or proceed at your own risk! and look–I have a study right here proving that my gun is more effective than your knife…statistically, my gun will be much more effective and destructive than your knife. I can prove it!

Full of expectation, you eagerly anticipate his response. But your hopes are dashed as he simply straightens up and says: “It doesn’t matter…I don’t believe in your study. It was probably done by biased researchers who had unreasonable faith in guns anyway”.

Your heart sinks with discouragement as you realize that your efforts are rebuffed by your opponent. So, acting under the realization that he really doesn’t believe in your gun, you throw it down and take off running in the opposite direction.

How absurd. But you have one last chance. You’re walking through the city, and hallo there! Before you appears the same thug, waving his knife, demanding your money or your life! Again, you whip out your Spingfield .40  caliber X3 subcompact pistol and inform him, saying: “Sir, I have a Spingfield .40  caliber X3 subcompact pistol that delivers 30,000 foot pounds of force on impact! Do reconsider your present course of action or proceed at your own risk!” Again, he starts giving his usual mantra: “I don’t believe in your gun…” But this time is different. You’ve decided that pulling the trigger will do more to make him a believer in guns than anything else.

Now, certainly this story is not meant to imply that we should violence to implement our agenda. Nor does it mean that we will force people to become Christians. But what the above story does do is illustrate the folly and absurdity of waiting for your enemies to agree with you as a precondition for action.

But this same fallacy is, I fear, committed by politicians who “personally” claim to be Christians, yet keep that out of the scope of their political philosophy.

Yet what an opportunity we are missing! Christians grow ashamed of the name of Christ and neglect to bring his name into the debate–be it over abortion, gay “rights”, property rights, religious liberty, Ten Commandment displays, etc, and they lose the battle! Wow! I would never has guessed to that once we forgot about God in public debate that we would just happen to lose some ground as well. Unbelievable!

When we bring Biblical foundations to our positions in the public square, we will of course be criticized. But doing so gives us an excellent opportunity to bring the debate into another field that is far more relevant than any social ill–once the our Christian foundation for our political decisions is attacked, simply turn the debate into one issue: Is the Bible true? Is Christianity true? If they can disprove God or the Bible, go for it. But until they do so, you are perfectly justified in subscribing to a something that you think has good evidence and arguments backing it up. The more research and study I do, the more I am persuaded that with a continuing focus on research, knowledge, and dialogue on Christian theology and apologetics, the Christian message and world view is one that we can defend vigorously, reasonably, and logically.

Here’s the summery creed we need to present to our opponents, and then challenge them to attack it–as Christian Apologist, author, and family man Voddie Baucham once stated:

“Is that your final answer? I hope its not. Let me give you an answer to that question that I believe is better than ‘I was raised that way’ or its better than “Well I’m Southern Baptist and that’s the way we believe’ or its better than “I tried it, and it worked for me” Let me tell you why I choose to believe the Bible. I don’t believe the Bible because I was raised that way—because I wasn’t. I don’t choose to believe the Bible because I tried it and it worked for me. My mother’s Buddhism worked for her—that’s why she was a Buddhist! I need something more than just ‘because it works’. Here’s the answer—I’ll give it to you and unpack it for you:

I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report [of] supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claimed that their writing are divine rather than human in origin.”

Rational Libertarianism doesn’t solve. It uses logic to arrive at its conclusions, but logical and philosophical conundrums seem to make it a never ending rabbit trail of argumentation against what seem to be, at root, arbitrary standards of what constitutes “rights” and how those rights should be arbitrated when they conflict.

To the contrary, invoking a biblical standard in deciding what liberties should be enjoyed and what ones should not promises, I think, to open up a whole new strategy of debate on social issues and open up discussion much more relevant issues than endless cycles of dispute over “natural rights” and other notions precipitated wholly by human thought. Its time to invoke a standard outside of ourselves, and standard, that, I think, is true. Why not.

Maybe I’m idealist; overly optimistic. After all, maybe this new strategy won’t be as simple as I think. After all, even if we did adopt the Bible as our standard for public policy and liberty, would it indeed clarify anything? Are there not many and diverse ways of interpreting the scriptures?

Undoubtedly yes. Place any two churches side by side and you’ll get a taste of what that’s like. But surely there are some basic principles that could be agreed up and forcefully argued and articulated from God’s word that would provide a lens by which to judge public policy and proper restraint of liberty.

So challenge me. Correct me where I may be wrong; where I might be overlooking a key aspect of an issue or oversimplyfying the problem or the solution. In the meantime though, at least, I think the Biblical world view is more relevant and tenable than most Americans, politicians, and pastors think.


Written by Astuteness

June 5, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Life on Other Planets: Some Logical, Christian Insight and Perspective regarding the potential for alien life

with 24 comments

Space at Large

It was not too long ago that I was engaged in a deep discussion regarding life on other planets. Is it possible that life on other planets exists? Would alien life disprove Christianity? Can a Christian believe that life exists on other planets and still have a sound biblical worldview?

The short answer to the above list of questions is: Yes, No, and Yes.

It is possible that life on other planets could exist. As Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine said on the Colbert Report “You cannot prove a negative”. You cannot prove the absence of something, unless (in my opinion, not Michael Shermer’s) the Bible specifically adresses the issue. Since the Bible does not address the issue of alien life, then in the context of Christian discussion, dogmatically asserting as a matter of religious conviction that alien life does not exist is a tough conclusion to logically come by. The fact is, we don’t know.

I suspect many Christians are leery of admitting this because they might be afraid that the existence of alien life would prove evolution right and Christianity/Creationism wrong. But in this the Christian community holds to some unfounded fears. The discovery of alien life would not disprove Christianity anymore than it would prove evolution. In his book Darwin’s Black Box, Bio-Chemist Michael Behe astutely pointed out that understanding how something works or exists now does not prove we know how that came to be the way it is. Applying that to this discussion, it is reasonable to say that even if evolutionary scientists announce the presence of alien life in a far corner of the cosmos, this does not prove that evolution was the means by which it got there. God could just as well have supernaturally created that life apart from earth according to his divine will. So Christians need not fear any negative implications regarding how their Creationist position might be affected by the discovery of alien life. They must simply be ready to say that God can choose to create life where he chooses.

It is also my contention that one can believe in the possibility of alien life and still have Biblical worldview. Some people believe that alien life is somehow anti-thetical to Christianity, but for reasons hinted at in the above paragraph, I fail to see how this is the case. The Bible says nothing about the absence of alien life, so who are we to think that it must therefore not exist? Who are we to assert that we are the “only ones out there” in the vast expanse of the Universe? If God chose to create alien life, are we to say that we are obligated to know about it? I think not. God can do as he chooses with or without our knowledge.

our-point-in-the-galaxy.jpgIn short, life on other planets would neither contradict scripture nor destroy my faith. It would neither prove evolution nor disprove creationism. Christians should be willing to wholeheartedly embrace the possibility of life on other planets, and look forward to witnessing additional ways that God has shown forth his glory and handiwork.

My contention that alien life could exist should not serve to implicate me with those who justify spending billions of dollars looking for it. While the idea of alien life might be fascinating, current problems in this world like Terrorism, Economic Recession, Gun Control, School Violence, and AIDS, all should compel us to affirm that there are, quite frankly, more important things to do here on earth than look for microbes in another galaxy.

Written by Astuteness

March 18, 2008 at 10:08 am