Quotes & Sayings


We, and creation itself, actualize the possibilities of the God who sustains the world, towards becoming in the world in a fuller, more deeper way. - R.E. Slater

There is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have [consequential effects upon] the world around us. - Process Metaphysician Alfred North Whitehead

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says (i) all closed systems are unprovable within themselves and, that (ii) all open systems are rightly understood as incomplete. - R.E. Slater

The most true thing about you is what God has said to you in Christ, "You are My Beloved." - Tripp Fuller

The God among us is the God who refuses to be God without us, so great is God's Love. - Tripp Fuller

According to some Christian outlooks we were made for another world. Perhaps, rather, we were made for this world to recreate, reclaim, redeem, and renew unto God's future aspiration by the power of His Spirit. - R.E. Slater

Our eschatological ethos is to love. To stand with those who are oppressed. To stand against those who are oppressing. It is that simple. Love is our only calling and Christian Hope. - R.E. Slater

Secularization theory has been massively falsified. We don't live in an age of secularity. We live in an age of explosive, pervasive religiosity... an age of religious pluralism. - Peter L. Berger

Exploring the edge of life and faith in a post-everything world. - Todd Littleton

I don't need another reason to believe, your love is all around for me to see. – Anon

Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself thou givest us all. - Khalil Gibran, Prayer XXIII

Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut

Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals. - Jim Forest

We become who we are by what we believe and can justify. - R.E. Slater

People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone. – Anon

Certainly, God's love has made fools of us all. - R.E. Slater

An apocalyptic Christian faith doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but for Jesus to become in our midst. - R.E. Slater

Christian belief in God begins with the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not with rational apologetics. - Eberhard Jüngel, Jürgen Moltmann

Our knowledge of God is through the 'I-Thou' encounter, not in finding God at the end of a syllogism or argument. There is a grave danger in any Christian treatment of God as an object. The God of Jesus Christ and Scripture is irreducibly subject and never made as an object, a force, a power, or a principle that can be manipulated. - Emil Brunner

“Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” means "I will be that who I have yet to become." - God (Ex 3.14) or, conversely, “I AM who I AM Becoming.”

Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy. - Thomas Merton

The church is God's world-changing social experiment of bringing unlikes and differents to the Eucharist/Communion table to share life with one another as a new kind of family. When this happens, we show to the world what love, justice, peace, reconciliation, and life together is designed by God to be. The church is God's show-and-tell for the world to see how God wants us to live as a blended, global, polypluralistic family united with one will, by one Lord, and baptized by one Spirit. – Anon

The cross that is planted at the heart of the history of the world cannot be uprooted. - Jacques Ellul

The Unity in whose loving presence the universe unfolds is inside each person as a call to welcome the stranger, protect animals and the earth, respect the dignity of each person, think new thoughts, and help bring about ecological civilizations. - John Cobb & Farhan A. Shah

If you board the wrong train it is of no use running along the corridors of the train in the other direction. - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

God's justice is restorative rather than punitive; His discipline is merciful rather than punishing; His power is made perfect in weakness; and His grace is sufficient for all. – Anon

Our little [biblical] systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee, and Thou, O God art more than they. - Alfred Lord Tennyson

We can’t control God; God is uncontrollable. God can’t control us; God’s love is uncontrolling! - Thomas Jay Oord

Life in perspective but always in process... as we are relational beings in process to one another, so life events are in process in relation to each event... as God is to Self, is to world, is to us... like Father, like sons and daughters, like events... life in process yet always in perspective. - R.E. Slater

To promote societal transition to sustainable ways of living and a global society founded on a shared ethical framework which includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace. - The Earth Charter Mission Statement

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles. - Scott Postma

It is never wise to have a self-appointed religious institution determine a nation's moral code. The opportunities for moral compromise and failure are high; the moral codes and creeds assuredly racist, discriminatory, or subjectively and religiously defined; and the pronouncement of inhumanitarian political objectives quite predictable. - R.E. Slater

God's love must both center and define the Christian faith and all religious or human faiths seeking human and ecological balance in worlds of subtraction, harm, tragedy, and evil. - R.E. Slater

In Whitehead’s process ontology, we can think of the experiential ground of reality as an eternal pulse whereby what is objectively public in one moment becomes subjectively prehended in the next, and whereby the subject that emerges from its feelings then perishes into public expression as an object (or “superject”) aiming for novelty. There is a rhythm of Being between object and subject, not an ontological division. This rhythm powers the creative growth of the universe from one occasion of experience to the next. This is the Whiteheadian mantra: “The many become one and are increased by one.” - Matthew Segall

Without Love there is no Truth. And True Truth is always Loving. There is no dichotomy between these terms but only seamless integration. This is the premier centering focus of a Processual Theology of Love. - R.E. Slater

-----

Note: Generally I do not respond to commentary. I may read the comments but wish to reserve my time to write (or write from the comments I read). Instead, I'd like to see our community help one another and in the helping encourage and exhort each of us towards Christian love in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. - re slater

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Taylor Swift - "Mean"






Taylor Swift
Mean



Mean lyricsSongwriters: Swift, Taylor;

You, with your words like knives and swords and weapons that you use against me
You have knocked me off my feet again got me feeling like I'm nothing
You, with your voice like nails on a chalkboard, calling me out when I'm wounded
You, pickin' on the weaker man

Well, you can take me down with just one single blow
But you don't know what you don't know

Someday I'll be living in a big old city
And all you're ever gonna be is mean
Someday I'll be big enough so you can't hit me
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

Why you gotta be so mean?

You, with your switching sides and your walk-by lies and your humiliation
You, have pointed out my flaws again as if I don't already see them
I'll walk with my head down trying to block you out 'cause I'll never impress you
I just wanna feel okay again

I'll bet you got pushed around, somebody made you cold
But the cycle ends right now 'cause you can't lead me down that road
And you don't know what you don't know

Someday I'll be living in a big old city
[ From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/t/taylor-swift-lyrics/mean-lyrics.html ]
And all you're ever gonna be is mean
Someday I'll be big enough so you can't hit me
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

Why you gotta be so mean?

And I can see you years from now in a bar, talking over a football game
With that same big loud opinion but nobody's listening
Washed up and ranting about the same old bitter things
Drunk and grumbling on about how I can't sing

But all you are is mean
All you are is mean and a liar and pathetic and alone in life
And mean, and mean, and mean, and mean

But someday I'll be living in a big old city
And all you're ever gonna be is mean, yeah
Someday, I'll be big enough so you can't hit me
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

Why you gotta be so mean?

Someday, I'll be, living in a big old city
(Why you gotta be so mean?)
And all you're ever gonna be is mean
(Why you gotta be so mean?)
Someday, I'll be big enough so you can't hit me
(Why you gotta be so mean?)
And all you're ever gonna be is mean

Why you gotta be so mean?












 

"Mean"-ingful moment

Even the darkest cloud has a silver lining —
and in Taylor Swift's case, a CMA Award nomination as well
  • AP
  • Published: 00:02 November 10, 2011
Taylor Swift turned a negative into a positive, and it has netted her a special nomination at this year's Country Music Association Awards.

Swift received her first CMA song of the year nomination for Mean, her spunky rebuttal to cynical criticism. That trophy goes to the writer, not the artist, and is among the most coveted awards in a town where the songwriter is celebrated and revered.

"Respectfully, it's about time," said Scott Borchetta, head of Swift's label, Big Machine Records. "I don't think she gets near the props she deserves for her songwriting. I've been in the business with Taylor for almost seven years now and her songs were great when I met her at 14."

Swift has gotten her share of love for her songwriting. She won a Grammy for best country song in 2010. Nashville Songwriters Association International has named her songwriter/artist of the year four of the last five years — and at 21 she remains the youngest winner of that award. And BMI, the performing rights organisation, has awarded her all-genre song of the year once and country song of the year three times.

She's won a trunk full of CMA trophies, including top award entertainer of the year in 2009. But she's never broken through in that songwriting category.

Mean, a retort to nit-pickers, bullies and perhaps curmudgeonly commentator Bob Lefsetz, was hard to resist. It shows Swift at her best. It's both vulnerable and confident, with an infectious chorus, an upbeat, empowering message and among her most countrified instrumentation built around Swift's six-string banjo line.

The song went to No 1 on the country and adult contemporary charts.

"Getting a CMA nomination for Mean was definitely a jumping-up-and-down moment for me because this song is really close to my heart," Swift said.

"I'm so thrilled it was nominated for song of the year because it's a song that I wrote on a really, really bad day, but it has produced so many happy days for me since."

With more to come perhaps. Brad Paisley, a six-time nominee in the category, believes Swift has been unfairly overlooked as a songwriter among the industry voters who make up the CMA. He points out that most of the voters are in their 30s and 40s, and older. This year's nomination could be a breakthrough.

Groundbreaking

"There's no 18-year-old in the world that you talk to who doesn't relate to some of her lyrics," Paisley said. "And in that sense, though, she's laughing all the way to the bank as the voters might be saying, ‘Well, you know, that's not for me.' That's not fair. In some ways it's even more groundbreaking what she's done. I'm proud of what she's done."

Other nominees in the category are Zac Brown, Coy Boyles, Wyatt Durette and Levi Lowry for Zac Brown Band's Colder Weather, Kimberly Perry for The Band Perry's If I Die Young, Brantley Gilbert and Colt Ford for Jason Aldean's Dirt Road Anthem and Deana Carter and Matraca Berg for Kenny Chesney's You and Tequila. The field can be considered wide open with Berg the only previous winner, in 1997, as co-writer of Strawberry Wine.

Swift might not win, of course. But like the song points out, she's already a winner.

"She's just been on an amazing streak," Borchetta said. "Whatever her surroundings, wherever she happened to be, this is what she saw. And [the songs] are very sophisticated. They're very catchy. She's a brilliant songwriter and if you ask any of the other artists who are hip to her, they know. So I'm thrilled the CMA has acknowledged her."


 

Kelly Clarkson - "Stronger"





Kelly Clarkson
"What Doesn't Kill You (Stronger)"









"What Doesn't Kill You (Stronger)"

You know the bed feels warmer
Sleeping here alone
You know I dream in colour
And do the things I want

You think you got the best of me
Think you had the last laugh
Bet you think that everything good is gone
Think you left me broken down
Think that I'd come running back
Baby you don't know me, cause you're dead wrong

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger
Stand a little taller
Doesn't mean I'm lonely when I'm alone
What doesn't kill you makes a fighter
Footsteps even lighter
Doesn't mean I'm over cause you're gone

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, stronger
Just me, myself and I
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger
Stand a little taller
Doesn't mean I'm lonely when I'm alone

You heard that I was starting over with someone new
They told you I was moving on, over you

You didn't think that I'd come back
I'd come back swinging
You try to break me, but you see

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger
Stand a little taller
Doesn't mean I'm lonely when I'm alone
What doesn't kill you makes a fighter
Footsteps even lighter
Doesn't mean I'm over cause you're gone

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, stronger
Just me, myself and I
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger
Stand a little taller
Doesn't mean I'm lonely when I'm alone

Thanks to you I got a new thing started
Thanks to you I'm not the broken-hearted
Thanks to you I'm finally thinking about me
You know in the end the day you left was just my beginning
In the end...

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger
Stand a little taller
Doesn't mean I'm lonely when I'm alone
What doesn't kill you makes a fighter
Footsteps even lighter
Doesn't mean I'm over cause you're gone

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, stronger
Just me, myself and I
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger
Stand a little taller
Doesn't mean I'm lonely when I'm alone



latimes.com

Kelly Clarkson, 'Stronger' than ever

Nearly 10 years after becoming the first "American Idol,"
the singer says she feels great about her new album as well as her career.

October 26, 2011
by Gerrick D. Kennedy, Los Angeles Times


Kelly Clarkson was three songs into a stripped-down set at West Hollywood's Troubadour last week before she offered a declaration.

"This is my new CD. I just got it today," said Clarkson, barefoot and giggly after a pre-show shot (she prefers vodka), clutching a copy of "Stronger," released on Monday. "I'm in love with [it]."

Nearly a decade has passed since the 29-year-old was crowned the first "American Idol." Though she's since become a force on the charts with her sassy pop-rock anthems (her biggest record, "Breakaway," has sold more than 6.1 million copies), she admits the disc is a first of sorts for her. It's the first she's released without having to battle label brass. And the record is already garnering acclaim from critics praising its catchy pop hooks and dance-floor punch on songs like the second single, "What Doesn't Kill You (Stronger)," "You Love Me" and the deceptively titled "Dark Side."

"Literally every album, except this album, I've had to really push for songs or say no on certain stuff," Clarkson said. "It's very easy, obviously, for people when their main goal is to make money. But I don't want to do the same formula as someone else. I want to do my own thing. This album has been a piece of cake. There's no way to describe it. I'm just waiting for the kick in the butt."

Clarkson has never been shy about fighting for her music. There was that infamous clash with legendary music mogul Clive Davis — the only blip of controversy in her career — over her darker, rock-driven 2007 album, "My December," which she spent most of the promo cycle defending. The spat was quickly forgotten when she released 2009's "All I Ever Wanted," which featured the massive hit "My Life Would Suck Without You."

The new album sees her in a better place professionally, and she assures that the empowering title doesn't allude to any specific event from the past year. She simply comes off as more confident now and able to make choices based on experience. Though she worked with hit makers such as Max Martin/Dr. Luke and Ryan Tedder on her last album, this time she tapped a more eclectic team of talent, including Greg Kurstin, Ester Dean, Toby Gad and Bonnie McKee for the disc.

"I've just been doing this for 10 years, and looking back, the past four albums were kind of … everybody going against the grain on each other," she said. "This album, I'm getting along with everyone, everyone is loving the same stuff and the stars are aligning. I think it's because people know me better as an artist now. Producers and writers know me more. I'm not walking into a room and they don't know a thing about me."

Clarkson's relationship with the label might be at its best, but the release of "Stronger" still came with some hurdles. The disc is out nearly a year after it was originally slated, and the lead single, "Mr. Know It All," a mid-tempo R&B-driven pop tune, hasn't caught fire despite falling nicely in the vein of brazen kiss-offs she's known for. Plus, more than an album's worth of songs leaked onto the Internet earlier this year.



Wednesday, November 9, 2011

God's Role in Creation

What role could God have in evolution?

Image for: What role could God have in evolution?

Divine Action

Divine action is defined as God’s interaction with creation. Divine action figured prominently in early discussions of Darwin’s theory in the late nineteenth century. For some theologians, evolution was compatible with theism only if God acted supernaturally at discrete points in the evolutionary process.1 Other theologians saw the uninterrupted process of evolution as being fully compatible with Christian doctrine. They understood evolution to be “the silent and regular working of him who, in the fullness of time, utters his voice in Christ and the cross.”2

We still seek to understand God’s involvement in the world. BioLogos readily affirms that the Creator can act outside the created physical laws. However, we must not say that miraculous events outside the laws of nature are the only instances of God’s involvement—we believe God is actively sustaining all things (Col 1:17, Heb 1:3), even in regular, well-understood processes. For this reason, BioLogos does not require miraculous events in its account of God’s creative process, although they certainly may have occurred.


God’s Sovereignty and Creation’s Freedom

BioLogos affirms that God has endowed nature with a certain degree of freedom. This is not to say that nature has a mind of its own, but only that nature is not restricted to a machine-like, redetermined evolution. On the other hand, BioLogos also affirms that God has a plan and a purpose for creation. The Bible affirms both the freedom of nature (including human freedom) and the sovereignty of God.

BioLogos does not conceive of a God who is involved at certain times and who only observes at other times. BioLogos affirms a God who is at all times involved, yet who still allows a degree of freedom to the creation.


Providence and the Laws of Nature

If the laws of nature can explain an increasing number of natural phenomena, how is God involved? The laws of nature do not exist apart from God. They are a reflection of the activity of God. If God ceased to uphold the laws of nature, there would be no universe.

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Col 1:16, 17 NASB)

…in these last days [God] has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. (Heb 1:2, 3a NASB)
If we were somehow able to fully explain the operation of the physical universe, we would not have explained God out of the picture. Rather, we would have explained the regular and repeatable sustaining activity of God.

Theologians speak of “ordinary providence,” whereby God uses means (such as natural laws), “yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.”3 We can therefore distinguish between the natural and supernatural activity of God. The natural activity of God is simply that which occurs in a regular and highly repeatable fashion. Because of its regularity over eons of time, it can be studied and understood through the scientific process.

What about the supernatural activity of God? In the words of Ard Louis, “Miracles occur when God chooses to sustain the world in a manner that is different than what He normally does.” Supernatural activity is not somehow more God’s activity than natural activity. Both types fully reflect God’s character and accomplish his purposes.


Notes
  1. David N. Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1987), 118.
  2. A. H. Strong, as quoted in Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders, 129.
  3. Westminster Confession of Faith, “On Providence” (V,3).

Further Reading

Websites

Articles
Books
  • Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action Series. Edited by Robert John Russell, et al. 5 vols. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Foundation, 1997-2002.
  • Falk, Darrel. Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds between Faith and Biology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
  • Polkinghorne, John. “Creation and Creator.” In Science and Creation: The Search for Understanding, 63-82. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, 2006. First published 1988 by SPCK.
  • Polkinghorne, John. Science and Providence: God’s Interaction with the World. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, 2005. First published 1989 by SPCK.



Christian Misconceptions About Evolutionary Creation


Where We Come From and Who We Are
October 19, 2011




Narrated by Ard Louis
Theoretical Physics | Oxford

http://biologos.org/blog/where-we-come-from-and-who-we-are

*Today's video is courtesy of filmmaker Ryan Pettey, director/editor of Satellite Pictures.




In this video, physicist Ard Louis discusses the misconceptions about evolution and what it says about our purpose. A lot of the young earth arguments against evolution, says Louis, can be beneficial to those promoting atheism. According to Louis, both sides are attempting to extract theology from the natural world and wrongly accept the premise that where we come from determines who we are and how we should live. However, that’s not what the Bible tells us; rather, our value comes from God, and God determines who we are and how we should live.

Many understand evolution as a theory underlined by the idea that our existence is purposelessness. But our value and purpose do not come from whether or not we were created by an evolutionary mechanism. Evolution may tell us something about how we were created, but it is not the source of our worth. That worth comes from God.

For more from Ard Louis, be sure to read his white paper for BioLogos.





Evolution: Is God Just Playing Dice?


October 11, 2011       
          
Evolution: Is God Just Playing Dice?                                         
Today's entry was written by Matt J. Rossano. Matt J. Rossano is Professor of Psychology at Southeastern Louisiana University and author of Supernatural Selection: How Religion Evolved.
This article first appeared on The Huffington Post.
"Reply the tape a million times ... and I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again" (Stephen Jay Gould from "Wonderful Life", 1989 p. 289, Harvard University Press.).
With his standard panache, the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould argued strenuously that evolution had no inherent directionality. It was a cosmic crapshoot - in no way destined to produce anything complex, self-conscious or human.

We are mere accidents; a "tiny twig on an improbable branch of
a contingent limb on a fortunate tree" ("Wonderful Life" p. 291).

Highly fortunate indeed! Eons ago, a dinosaur-dominated earth held little promise for mammalian ascendancy (let alone primates or humans). Our distant ancestors might have remained little more than scurrying nuisances nipping at the feet of giants if not for a most unlikely calamity - a massive meteor strike which swept away the dinos and forever altered the earth's bio-saga. Who would have guessed?

Evolution's capricious nature seemed to represent a severe stumbling block for the Abrahamaic religious traditions. In their narrative, humans represented the culmination of God's creative work - the very purpose for creation itself. But evolution is an awfully shoddy way of enacting a divine plan. Gould delighted in annoying the faithful by emphasizing this very point:
"Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution - paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce" ("The Panda's Thumb", 1980, pp. 20-1).
Theologians, however, were quick to point out that the chance element in evolution was neither new nor necessarily contrary to the Judeo-Christian view of God. Human history was replete with chance; evolution only extended the theme. Moreover, chance allowed for freedom - a virtue high on God's agenda. However theologically sound these retorts may have been, their force was often lost on the average believer. The accidental nature of human existence provided just another reason to reject evolution altogether in order to preserve God's special concern for humanity.

Gould was a talented science writer, but he overplayed evolution's whimsy. Increasingly, science is showing that the evolutionary process has many built-in constraints which limit its possibilities and bias its pathways. Take, for example, the ubiquitous phenomenon of convergence - the tendency for highly diverse species to independently evolve similar adaptive (analogous, not homologous) traits. Most of us are familiar with the saber-toothed tiger, the scourge of our hominin ancestors. Less familiar are a group of South American marsupials called the thylacosmilids who independently evolved similar protruding saber-teeth. Convergence can also be seen in a number of specifically human traits. For example, we share a mode of locomotion, bipedalism, with birds, kangaroos, and some dinos. The lateralized and convoluted structure of our brains can also be found in octopi, this despite the fact that vertebrates and cephalopods diverged from one another over 450 million years ago.

In his book "Life's Solution" (2003, Cambridge Press) Cambridge Palaeobiologist Simon Conway Morris documents scores of examples of convergent evolution from insect body designs to the social systems of dolphins and chimpanzees (both fission-fusion). The important lesson [of convergence] is that there are only a limited number of ways that evolution can solve the adaptive problems posed by the earth's ecosystems. Time and again, evolution stumbles upon the same general design features from which to fashion adaptive traits.

Now add to this the Baldwin effect - an idea originally proposed in 1896 wherein organisms are posited to actively shape their own selective forces. For example, suppose some fairly intelligent primates begin fashioning tools, giving them access to new resources and a competitive advantage over non-tool users. Any genetic predisposition facilitating tool use would also be positively selected. A severe limitation on Baldwin effects has always been the unpredictability of genetic mutation. For any heritable genetic changes to occur (so the thinking has always been) our tool wielding primate would just have to wait around and hope for a lucky "tool use" mutation to pop up. But maybe not. Two recent books, Jablonka and Lamb's "Evolution in Four Dimensions" (2005 MIT press) and Kirschner and Gerhart's "The Plausibility of Life" (2005, Yale University Press) discuss connections between recent work in genetics and Baldwinian processes. What if the primate's tool use actually raised the probability that a tool-relevant genetic change would take place which could then be passed along to offspring?

Recent genetic research (in a field called epigenetics) shows that experiences occurring over one's lifetime can produce heritable genetic changes. For example, mice exposed to two weeks of environmental enrichment (more social interaction, activity, novel objects to explore) show evidence of enhanced memory function (not surprising). More surprising is that their offspring also show evidence of enhanced memory even though they were never exposed to environmental enrichment (Journal of Neuroscience, 29, p. 1496). Thus, the increased environmental stimulation created a genetic change in the parents that was then transmitted to offspring. This change appears to involved altered patterns of gene regulation (how genes are turned on and off during development). Similar effects have been noted in humans (see European Journal of Human Genetics, 14, p. 159).

Convergence, epigenetic inheritance, and Baldwin effects are only a few of the mechanisms serving as directional constraints on evolution's pathways. In his review of the various factors affecting the evolutionary process, anthropologist Melvin Konner concludes:
"There are no intrinsic driving factors in evolution, but there are intrinsic constraints and canalized paths along which either evolution or development may more easily proceed" ("The Evolution of Childhood," Harvard Press, 2010, p. 59, emphasis in original).
Of course, none of these constraining factors guarantee our arrival on the evolutionary stage. They do, however, raise the odds that in time a complex, rational, self-aware creature capable of entertaining both scientific and religious ideas might emerge.

The more we understand evolution, the less it seems like neither the bogeyman creationists fear nor the universal God-dissolving acid some atheists crave.




A Proper Biblical Epistemology v. Christian Certainty

Certainty Not (another one of those pesky pre-biblical theological decisions)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/04/certainty-not-another-one-of-those-pesky-pre-biblical-theological-decisions/

A strong dose of intellectual humility, rooted in acknowledgment of
one's own fallibility, would save the world around them a lot of trouble.

by Roger Olson
posted April 19, 2011

Some time ago I wrote here about two important theological decisions the Bible does not help us solve. The first one was (1) nominalism/voluntarism versus realism (with regard to whether God has a nature) and the second one was (2) whether the church of the New Testament was the church in embryo or the mature church. Where a person comes down on these issues inevitably influences much of his or her theology, but the Bible does not directly (or perhaps even indirectly) tell us what the right view is.

Another such pre- or extra-biblical theological decisions every thinking Christian makes and that influences his or her theological thinking is whether certainty is a human possibility. I often find myself bemused about a theological discussion or debate and then figure out that my lack of understanding my debate partner’s point of view relates to (3) our different views of certainty.

I am a fallibilist; some Christians aren’t. That is, (1) I believe, because of our finitude and fallenness, all human beings are fallible all of the time with exceptions of Jesus Christ and the writers of Scripture. I admit it is possible that some other human persons have infallible revelation, but I doubt it.

I am also convinced (fallibly!) that (2) finite and fallen human beings are not capable of certainty without an immediate, supernatural gift of certainty. And I don’t think I know anyone who has that and I’m alway suspicious of claims to it.

Two books have been especially helpful to me in this regard: Dan Taylor’s The Myth of Certainty and Lesslie Newbigin’s Proper Confidence. These are excellent, small treatments of the subject of certainty from a Christian perspective.
  • Taylor’s is a semi-autobiographical, narrative-shaped discussion of certainty. In place of "certainty" the author recommends that we settle for "the risk of commitment".
  • Newbigin says “Christian faith is not a matter of logically demonstrable certainties but of the total commitment of fallible human beings "putting their trust in the faithful God who has called them.” (99)

[Summary position]. I believe we can have blessed assurance and proper confidence in God and God’s revelation, but absolute certainty that transcends all possibility of being wrong is normally unavailable to mere mortals, at least in this life.


On Capital Punishment

We have all experienced THINKING we knew something FOR SURE and then finding out we were wrong.

Does denial of certainty amount to lack of commitment? No. Commitment takes on special significance in the absence of absolute certainty. In the absence of certainty I must sometimes take the risk of commitment to a cause, but I CANNOT take another person’s life based on my uncertain “knowledge” of their guilt (to use one example of the practical implications of my epistemology). Neither should anyone, because no one has that kind of certainty.

Am I absolutely certain that capital punishment is wrong? I can only say that I am as certain of that as I am of almost anything I believe. But of course my certainty falls short of absoluteness. To claim absolute certainty about anything is, my opinion, tantamount to claiming to have God’s own knowledge of it.

Lack of absolute certainty requires humility and humility requires circumspection in all decisions and actions. Taking another person’s life when you could be wrong about their guilt is, I believe, a sin. (That’s not the only reason I think it’s a sin, but it’s one reason.)

On the other hand, lack of certainty does not paralyze; putting someone in prison for life without the possibility of parole when you think they deserve death is an act the risk of commitment in the face of lack of absolute certainty. It leaves open the possibility of reversal of judgment if it should turn out that the person was not guilty (however unlikely that may seem).

[Captial Punishment] is just one case study in proper confidence rather than absolute certainty. I am always a little afraid of people who claim to have absolute certainty about anything. I’ve known too many people who claimed to have “the mind of God” (and really seemed to believe it!) who went off on crazy crusades involving absurdity and/or abuse. A strong dose of intellectual humility, rooted in acknowledgment of one's own fallibility, would save the world around them a lot of trouble.

None of this means we shouldn’t act. What it means is, as we act, we should be aware that we are taking a risk and that God is both our judge and the giver of mercy when, by his light and help, we do the best we can.



19 Responses
  1. Zach says:
    Great Post! Particularly in regard to epistemology and acting (particularly from a Christian perspective) I’ve always found Reinhold Niebuhr to be top dog; having and not having the truth, the struggle for justice, etc (I have to admit I find the late Niebuhr top dog in most things). What’s your take on Niebuhr? Do you recommend/have found helpful a Christian ethicist who covers this topic well (the extent of our knowledge and how we should act, i.e. ethics)?
    • Roger says:
      I find Niebuhr helpful. A recent Niebuhr-like treatment of Christian social ethics is Making the Best of It by John Stackhouse.
  2. K Gray says:
    Two topics relating to certainty: spiritual knowledge and other knowledge.
    Spiritual knowledge – “Now faith is being sure [assurance] of what we hope for and certain [conviction] of what we do not see.” I do not know Greek so maybe someone else knows whether or not this approximates certainty.
        • K Gray says:
          Professor Olson, do you have any comment on Hebrews 11:1? Also, Jesus promises, and Paul explains, the Spirit will disclose truth to men, as taken from God’s mind. If God chooses to reveal and disclose certain truths, and grants spiritual knowledge, wisdom and understanding more and more (to those who have), should mature Christians remain less-than-certain of those things, e.g. Jesus will return? Maybe this is an issue of semantics. That’s why I was asking about the Greek in Heb. 11:1, for example.
          Ben – Truth for today: Jesus is risen! :)
          • Roger says:
            Perhaps it is an issue of semantics. I don’t know any human being who, in the deepest recesses of his or her thoughts, doesn’t occasionally have a doubt about something revealed. 
  1. Jerry L says:
    Roger, we certainly can agree on this point. A belief in our own fallibility would go along way towards solving many of the useless arguments we have regarding issues of theology. I am always leery of pronouncements from the left, right or middle that they some how, outside of clear scriptural mandate, know the mind of God on a particular issue, this usually results in my asking for a clearly laid out argument from scripture.
    It is also why I think many Evangelicals/Post-Evangelicals/Liberals/You Name the Group, fail us when they don’t also look to the wisdom of nearly 2,000 years of church thinking on many these very same issues, while I am confident that the catholic (small c intentional) church has not always been right or in a position to speak to every issue a little attendance to the wisdom of the whole church might have saved us many an argument. This is one of the reasons I am ill at ease regarding arguments about, capital punishment, just war and many other topics. I can’t fail to listen to Yoder any more than I can to Agustin.
  2. Aaron says:
    “Dan Taylor’s The Myth of Certainty and Lesslie Newbigin’s Proper Confidence.”
    – Agreed, great books!
  3. jc_freak says:
    This is my favorite post from you thus far. You have managed to capture something that has always been true for me that I have never thought to articulate, but is at the heart of much of my interactions with other people.
    One of the things that I have been working on in my life is actually taking those risks of commitment that you are talking about. Because I recognize the possibility of being wrong, it therefore means that I often don’t want to act, and I usually prefer decisions that are reversible or at least alterable.
    But what I have become aware of over time is the need of decisiveness(and I mean ‘need’ in the literal sense). This has driven me to take more risks, and to be comfortable walking out on even important issues confidently on probablies and maybes.
  4. Ian Paul says:
    Thanks for this–I love your differentiation between proper confidence and absolute certainty. I wonder if this debate relates to James Smith’ ‘The Fall of Interpretation’ arguing that hermeneutics is pre- not post- lapsarian as an element of human finiteness not human sin?
  5. Taylor says:
    Dr. Olson, I’ve not read Taylor or Newbigin’s books, but I’ll have to add them to my list. A couple of summers ago, I took my Wednesday church crowd through Alister McGrath’s book “Doubting” which includes a marvelous chapter entitled, “Doubt and the Vain Search for Certainty.” The church responded very well to the study. Not only is it freeing to recognize that having faith is not the same thing as being certain, but, like you wrote, it also helps us to live with more humbly with one another.
    • Roger says:
      I’m sure you’ve heard this, Taylor, but I’ll put it here anyway (for others’ benefit). Fred Buechner wrote that “Doubt is the ants in the pants of faith–it keeps it moving.”
  6. Joel Naranjo says:
    I completely agree with you, dr. Olson. For long time i’ve struggled with the issue of certainty, and come to the conclusion that epistemological humility (that would be a fancy way to put it) is actually a christian virtue. But I’m not that sure that the Bible doesn’t say anything about it. When I read passages like Proverbs 9:8 or 21:11 I see that a mark of the wise is willingness to be corrected. And this would imply that the wise is willing to recognize the possibility of being wrong, and therefore would be open to listen closely to other people opinions, to ponder them and even change his mind if there are good reason for it. I’m not sure many people have passages like this in mind when it comes to theological discussions…
  7. Adam L says:
    Hey Dr. Olson!
    Great post!
    I was wondering if you could speak more about why you exempt the writers of scripture from fallibility. I can understand the logic when it comes to Christ (who is God), but I’m not sure how that could be claimed of non-divine beings (such as authors of scripture).
    Thanks!
    Adam
    PS – Great blog! Wow, I didn’t even realize you had one!
    • Roger says:
      Hi, Adam. By faith I accept that God granted the prophets and apostles special inspiration that resulted in infallibility in matters pertaining to salvation. If others have also written or spoken infallibly on such matters (or any other matters) I’m not aware of it.
  8. James W. says:
    How certain is certain? Its only relatively certain, and, yes, fallibly certain, and yet certain. When it arrives, it comes as a gift from God. I have searched my whole life for certainty. It arrived through my baptism with the Holy Spirit. It came as a great surprise, and it is my life’s watershed moment. It happened when I struggled to let go of my heart’s attachment to worldly things, and when I asked Him to fill me with His Spirit. I now carry with me the gift of certainty concerning God’s love for you and me and the presence of his Holy Spirit in our lives.


Tuesday, November 8, 2011

What does the resurrected Jesus say about the after-life?


Rob Bell's Replacement Speaks Out on Bell and Hell
http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/156093-rob-bell-s-replacement-speaks-out-on-bell-and-hell.html

by Shane Hipps - http://shanehipps.com/
November 2011

Editor's note: Shane Hipps, the teaching pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church, recently posted his thoughts surrounding Rob Bell's book and the issue of hell. The discussion about hell is still very important for the church today and we encourage you to share your thoughts in the comment section below--we also encourage you to be civil and use Scripture to back up your arguments. Tomorrow, we will feature a post on hell from Francis Chan.

Rob Bell's Replacement Speaks Out on Bell and Hell
Shane Hipps discusses hell, theology,
and the post-resurrection teachings of Jesus.
There is a lot of talk these days about heaven and hell. Recently, a handful of best-selling books have been published on this topic (23 Minutes in Hell, Erasing Hell, Heaven Is for Real, God Wins). Some of these are in direct response to Rob Bell’s book Love Wins (incidentally and ironically, a book almost entirely concerned with this life, not the next one).

As a Christian who believes in the Bible and Jesus, I have found the intensity and certainty of the debate all very bizarre. It’s strange that so much passion and ink has been spilled over something that is all speculation.

Here’s what I mean: If you died, took pictures, and came back to life again, then you would know with certainty what happens after death. Of course, you would only know what happens to you, not everyone else. But if you haven’t died, you can only speculate about what happens to you and everyone else.

This speculation is perfectly fine. As long as we recognize these are only our beliefs. And beliefs by nature are not certain; they are faith based assumptions. That’s what makes them beliefs. Once you can prove them, they are no longer beliefs; they become a kind of knowing. And the funny thing is once you know, you don’t need to debate anymore.

I have never died, so I don’t have a theological position on heaven or hell. I can only entertain theological possibilities. There is a big difference.

I take a position when I know something with certainty. Almost always through direct experience. If someone pinches me, I don’t believe they pinched me. I know it. I experienced it. It doesn’t reside somewhere in my head. Nothing to debate. It happened.

I consider a possibility when it’s something I don’t know. This is something I merely believe. Either because someone I trust told me, or the Bible seems to say it, or reason supports it. But until I’ve experienced it, this is only something I believe– a possibility. And possibilities should be held with an open hand, perhaps with some humility and even humor. Who knows, I could be wrong about what I believe?

Now having said this, I’m only aware of one person who died, and I mean really died, like three days dead, and came back to life again. His name was Jesus. Upon his return from the dead, he didn’t believe anymore; now he knew. So if I wanted some indication about what happens after I die, I should probably pay attention to what he said after he came back from the dead.

Here’s what he said about heaven and hell after his resurrection. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

What did he talk about? Here’s just a sampling:

  • He tells his disciples to make students of him (Mt 28:16),
  • to share the good news of liberation in this life (Mk 16:9-20).
  • He says, “Peace be with you,”
  • and “I’m hungry.” (Lk 24:36-41)
  • He says, “Receive the holy breath; now you can forgive sins.” (Jn 20:22)
  • He says, “It’s me, really, touch my side” (Jn 20:27),
  • and “The fishing is better on the right side of the boat.” (Jn 21:6)
  • He says “Let’s eat” (Jn 21),
  • “Feed my sheep; now follow me” (Jn21:18-20), and
  • “Stop worrying about the future and the fate of other people; just follow me.” (Jn 21:22; Acts 1:7-8)

Not exactly a systematic theology of the afterlife. Mostly, it’s a repeated invitation to trust and follow him and not worry about the future. Apparently, he is also hungry a lot. If anyone had the authority and credibility to provide a coherent-once-and-for-all description of exactly what happens after you die, it would be Jesus upon his return from beyond the beyond. But he didn’t. He didn’t even seem all that interested.

If it were important to him, you’d think he would have written a book about it. Or preached a sermon or two. But he didn’t. After Jesus rose from the dead, he spends his time talking about this life.

It would seem Jesus is more concerned with this life than the next. Perhaps we should be, too.

We only get one, and it’s short.



Genomic Observations About Adam and Eve

 
 
 
Understanding Evolution: Mitochondrial Eve, Y-Chromosome Adam, and Reasons to Believe

by Dennis Venema
October 28, 2011

Today's entry was written by Dennis Venema. Dennis Venema is an associate professor and department chair for the biology department of Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia. His research is focused on the genetics of pattern formation and signaling.                                                      

One of the challenges for discussing evolution within evangelical Christian circles is that there is widespread confusion about how evolution actually works. In this (intermittent) series, I discuss aspects of evolution that are commonly misunderstood in the Christian community. In this post, we tackle the issue of why “Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosome Adam” are not an ancestral couple from whom all humans descend, as claimed by the Old-Earth Creationist organization Reasons to Believe.

It is reasonably well known among evangelical Christians that all living humans trace their mitochondrial DNA back to a single woman (a so-called “mitochondrial Eve”) and that all living males similarly trace their Y-chromosome DNA back to a single male (a so-called “Y-chromosome Adam”). These individuals are commonly assumed by evangelicals to be the Biblical Adam and Eve, the first humans alive and the progenitors of the entire human race. While most young-earth and old-earth creationist organizations make this claim, perhaps one of the best-known organizations to do so is the old-earth creationist / anti-evolution organization Reasons to Believe, who have produced numerous articles, podcasts, and even entire books on the subject.

In contrast to this common evangelical understanding, the scientific picture is rather different. Mitochondrial Eve, though the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all humans, was but one of a large population living about 180,000 years ago. So too for Y-chromosome Adam: he was also a member of a large population, and he lived about 50,000 years ago [(notice the age span between Eve and Adam of at least 100,000 years; Eve is called in the Bible as the "Mother of all Living," not Adam) - res]. As has been discussed several times here at BioLogos, there are multiple lines of evidence that indicate the human population has never been below around 10,000 members at any time in its history: we branched off as a large population to form our own species.

When presented with the evidence for human population sizes over our evolutionary history, a common point of confusion for evangelicals is how this evidence fits with Mitochondrial Eve. How can we all come from one woman (and one man) but also come from a large population of 10,000 individuals? Aren’t these two observations in conflict?

The answer is no, these lines of evidence fit together. (1) Humans do come from a large population, and (2) all present-day humans do inherit mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA from specific individuals in the past.

The reason for the apparent discrepancy lies in how mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA are inherited, as we shall see below.

Mitochondria are organelles responsible for energy conversion, and they contain their own small, circular chromosome that they replicate apart from regular chromosomes in the cell nucleus. Mitochondria are not passed on to progeny through sperm, but only through the egg: as such, mitochondrial DNA is passed on solely through the maternal line. Consider a small pedigree (family tree) below. Circles represent females, males are represented with squares. In this family, one grandmother (the woman at the top right of the pedigree) has passed on her mitochondrial DNA to her sons and daughter, but only her daughter passes it on to the next generation. All individuals who have this grandmother’s mitochondrial DNA are shown in blue:

Mitochondrial Eve

Conversely, if we examine Y-chromosome inheritance in this same family, we would see that (obviously) women cannot pass it on to their children. Here, the red lines show all males who have descended from a grandfather of the family (the male at the top left of the pedigree):

Y-chromosome Adam

Now we are ready to examine how these types of DNA are inherited in a larger group, and compare their modes of inheritance with regular chromosomal DNA. While it is not possible to draw out a pedigree for a population of 10,000 individuals, let’s examine a smaller group to see how a specific mitochondrial sequence can “take over” a population of organisms (note that this effect applies to other organisms besides humans that use an XX – XY system of sex chromosomes).

In the family tree below, three mitochondrial DNA variants are present in the first generation (the top row of the pedigree) and a represented with different colors (green, blue and red). Tracing the inheritance of these mitochondrial DNA versions through the family tree shows that all living members of this population (the bottom two rows) have inherited the red version only. The blue and green versions eventually hit a dead end where they were not passed on (either through females who did not have children, or [who were] males). As such, all living individuals can trace their mitochondrial DNA back to this group’s “mitochondrial Eve”, the woman at the top right of the tree with the “Mito 3” variant.

Mitochondrial Eve's DNA Inheritance Patterns

Let’s now examine Y-chromosome inheritance patterns in the exact same family tree. Suppose there are three Y chromosome variants present in the first generations:

Y-chromosome Adam's Inheritance Patterns

Here we can see that the current population has inherited its Y-chromosome DNA from one individual as well (variant 1, the red lines) and that the other Y-chromosome variants (blue and green) hit dead ends through males that did not reproduce or men who only had daughters. All living members of the population trace their Y chromosome DNA back to an individual (filled in with yellow) who lived two generations after their most recent matrilineal common ancestor (the woman at the top right).

Now we are ready to examine regular chromosomal inheritance in this same family tree. Genetic variation on chromosomes other than the Y can be passed through either gender without problem, and individuals can have two variants at a time (one on the chromosome inherited from mom, the other on the chromosome inherited from dad). These key differences (compared to how mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes are inherited) produce a very different effect. In this same family, numerous variants (represented by the different colors) have been transmitted to the present generation without loss:
 
Regular Chromosomal Inheritance Patterns
for Males and Females

Notice the middle couple in the first generation in the pedigree. This man’s Y chromosome did not make it to the present day, and similarly his wife’s mitochondrial DNA did not make it either (scroll up to see this if you need to refresh your memory). So, they contributed nothing to the current generation, right? Not at all: both of them have passed on regular chromosomal variation to the present day (traced as blue and black lines).

While determining correctly that these two individuals share common mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome ancestors, it would be incorrect to examine this population and then go on to conclude that these same two individuals were an ancestral pair that started this entire family. We know this group descends from a larger population because the genetic variation in our present population is too large to explain [it as anything other than] coming from one pair (there are five colors, or genetic variants in this population, and the max any one pair could carry is four, with two each).

While this example examines a small family, the same principles apply to larger groups. Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome lineages, though interesting, cannot be used to estimate population sizes over time. For that type of work, regular chromosomal variation should be examined.

[Further,] Present day human genetic variation indicates that though we all share a common mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome source, these individuals came from a population of at least 10,000 individuals, and that they lived over 100,000 years apart. (If you are interested in examining the evidence for human population sizes, Darrel Falk and I have discussed it previously.)

In summary, anti-evolutionary groups, such as Reasons to Believe, that claim that the evidence for Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam supports an ancestral couple for the entire human race are not interpreting the data correctly. They have failed to account for the unique pattern of inheritance these types of DNA have in populations.

Photo courtesy of Lewis Schofield.


For Further Reference
 
 
Human Y Chromosome Much Older Than Previously Thought
Human sex-determining chromosomes:

X chromosome (left) and the much smaller Y chromosome.