Considering Not a Chance

Daughter who spies me reading the book: “Daddy, isn’t R.C. Sproul boring?”

“No, honey. Not to me.”

She is only 9 and R.C. is still a bit over her head. But one of Sproul’s strengths has always been putting the cookies where average people can reach them (not necessarily 9 year-olds however). As a young Christian I read his books and listened to his tapes. I owe him a great debt, so to speak.

In Not a Chance R.C. Sproul turns (most of) his attention away from theology and toward the philosophy of science. His concern is the growth of irrationality in science particularly as it intersects with issues related to creation. For people who don’t usually read philosophy, or haven’t in quite some time, he strives to make it accessible. He also strives to see the application. He interacts with a very long list of philosophers. He mostly succeeds in his goal of accessibility.

He begins with discussing the notion of chance. It can be used in the mathematical sense of probabilities, which is appropriate in science. We speak this way often: what are the chances of rain today? It can also be used to speak of something being accidental or unpredictable. This is typically an inappropriate use of the term in science. This use is growing as some scientists talk about things being created by chance. His point is that chance is not an entity and therefore cannot create anything. To speak as it can is to descend into irrationality. It is not irrational to say we don’t understand something at this point in time. But speaking of it as by chance is.

“I have been contending for the rigorous application of the laws of logic to inferences drawn from induction. Indeed that is what this book is all about.”

He also delves into the question of the universe as created, self-created or self-existent. Sometimes self-created and self-existent are used interchangeably by some scientists. They are not the same. All scientific data at this point in time would appear to rule out a self-existent universe. There was a “time” when it was not. Self-creation is also a logical nightmare. It cannot be and not be in the same sense and at the same time. The universe would clearly appear to be contingent as a result. He makes a brief argument for a Creator.

Read Full Post »

Considering Justice in the Public Square

Talking about justice in practice takes us into the complexity of politics (broadly used).  We must inevitably work with people in a pluralistic culture.  Sometimes we will share the same views, but for different reasons.  Other times we will have divergent views.  In his 7th chapter of Generous Justice, Tim Keller risks entering the dark room to switch the light on for us.

The Justice Card

Keller shares a story of staff members for a nonprofit deciding who should represent the agency at a conference.  Some lobbied for a senior staff member who was a female.  Others a younger man who had less experience but was particularly gifted in such situations.  Somehow, those who thought the woman should go claimed it was “a justice issue.”  It brought dialogue to an abrupt end.  The woman was chosen, but reluctantly by those who didn’t want to be called unjust.  They weren’t unjust, but this story reveals that “justice” can be person relative.

By that Keller means that people often have very different understandings of justice.  Often people on both sides of debates (abortion, tax rates, war etc.) claim they are being just and the other side unjust.  Presuppositions are at work to support these very different understandings of justice in that situation.

“Democrats think of it more in collective terms. … Republicans think of justice more individualistically.”

Our debates on issues exist because fundamentally we can’t agree on what justice is.  Many of the terms used to define justice, like “freedom” and “equality”, are equally vague.  We go chasing shadows.  Think about “harm” regarding abortion.  Pro-choice people don’t want harm to come to the woman.  This is their concern, forgetting there are other people involved in this (yes, people!).  Pro-life people don’t want harm to come to the child, the mother, the father and other people.

Read Full Post »