GBC Sunday School

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Science and Faith at War? 3 3. Blind Faith—Does the Bible present it as a virtue?

Notes from a Sunday School that began on May 25.

Comments, corrections, and routine editing: absolutely welcomed!

An index of all posts is on the right frame.

Location: Grace Baptist Chapel
805 Todd's Lane
Hampton, VA 23666
Time: 10:00-10:45 am

3. Blind Faith—Does the Bible present it as a virtue?

There are two quite vocal groups who do not seek reconciliation between science and faith. On the contrary, their agenda is to foil any such rapprochement. One group is a more-militant subset of atheistic scientists and their supporters. The other group is a certain type of Christian fundamentalist. Strange bedfellows, these two communities make. Their reasons are oddly similar—an intense dislike of the other group. They are not unlike two groups of racists of different ethnicity, both of whom agree that interracial marriage is bad.

The argument they make is this: any desire to see God in science, or to claim physical evidence for God, is bad theology. Why? Because they argue (identically and from convenience) science is the opposite of faith. Faith is a virtue which, they will say, science undermines. According to this line of reasoning, any search for the glory of God in science is a lose-lose scenario. If successful, it renders faith obsolete, and if unsuccessful, it creates an unnecessary and unpleasant challenge to faith.

For example, in an article for the San Antonio Express-News, Susan Ives wrote:³²

Intelligent design disrespects faith, discounts faith, destroys faith.

Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Faith falls into the realm of metaphysics — literally, "beyond physics," the branch of philosophy that seeks to explain the nature of reality and the origin and structure of the world.

When we try to prove and promote the metaphysical through the physical — when we muddle faith and science — we are, in effect, saying that faith is not enough, that faith, like science, requires proof. Faith that requires proof is no faith at all.

In my Protestant tradition we recite a creed that declares our faith: "I believe in God the father almighty, maker of heaven and Earth."

There are no footnotes in this creed that refer to William Dembski's "The Design Inference" or references to "The Black Box" by Michael Behe, two of the seminal books in the intelligent design movement.

But is Ms. Ives presenting a false dichotomy? Are our choices limited to “faith only” and “demanding scientific proof of God”? Of course they are not. Any Christian who has gazed at a sunset or marveled at the birth of their child knows that the observable world can glorify God and bolster faith while still falling far short of proving God. For a believer, science is the same “creation gazing” writ large. We see God’s amazing handiwork not just in the easily accessible everyday phenomena, but most microscopic and most distant events that require great effort to observe and understand.

Now in fact, it is blind faith that, according to both these groups, is the ultimate Christian virtue. Blind faith truly is the opposite of science, and if blind faith is what the bible calls for then these groups have a point. That is why we take time to look at the question of faith. Superficially it is opposed to science—but only if we permit these two groups to define the essence of biblical faith.

From fundamentalists, the canonization of blind faith stems from an anti-science position: Science is evil, it promotes evil ideas (e.g., an old earth) therefore the senses are not to be trusted--just believe in the interpretation of scripture we promote.

I have often written something that I know people tend to dispute: fundamentalism is a form of liberalism. That's right: Bob Jones University is liberal--because liberal, in terms of theology, means man-centered as opposed to Sola Scriptura. Liberalism means taking liberties with the Bible. Fundamentalism both adds to scripture (in the form of legalism) and takes away from scripture (mostly resulting from its overly-simplistic hyper-literal hermeneutic.) Well here is something else that may surprise you about fundamentalism: it leans toward the Gnostic. Like Gnosticism it demonizes the physical realm and emphasizes "special knowledge." The special knowledge of fundamentalism goes by the name: blind faith.

So this is what we seek to explore. Is blind faith the hallmark of the Christian walk? We shall examine this question by taking a look at the eleventh chapter of the magnificent book of Hebrews. That is the so-called faith Hall of Fame. It should prove particularly relevant.

3.1. Hebrews 11 seems to say yes, until, oddly enough…

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Heb 11:1)

This passage is one of two (the other being the "Doubting Thomas" passage) that are used to support the idea that "blind faith" is not just your garden-variety virtue, it's the ultimate virtue that a Christian can and should posses. In fact, many would agree that what defines a Christian is (1) blind faith and (2) the appropriate target of that blind faith.

There is no question that the writer of Hebrews is praising faith. And the faith he is praising is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen. The relevant questions would seem to be:

Who is the target of this praise? Is it all believers, or some particular group?

Is the faith being praised specific? To put it another way, what are the things hoped for and what are the things not seen? Is this broadly referring to “God”?

The key is in the verses that follow:

²For by it the people of old received their commendation. ³By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. ⁴By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. (Heb 11:2-4)

These subsequent verses are omitted when someone wants to uses the first verse as bludgeon. When they want verse one to mean that saving faith derives only from things not seen—lest it somehow be tainted. When they want it to mean that any sign of God in the physical realm can only weaken rather than strengthen faith.

Verse two tells us who the writer is talking about: the people of old, the Old Testament saints. If verse one were a blanket statement, it would apply to all believers. But here we have an indication that the faith being praised is for the BC generations. (Verse three is a quasi-scientific verse. We just note that Old Earth Creations have no problem here. We believe God created the universe via the Big Bang, and it is indeed the case that it was made of things that are not visible. In fact, nothing was visible until 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when light was no longer trapped.)

In verse four we see another important clue. The faiths of Cain and Abel are contrasted. Is Abel’s faith more acceptable because it is blind? No—both Cain and Abel had, we can be sure, personal exposure to God. No, Abel’s faith is praiseworthy not because he believed in God without seeing him—both Abel and Cain “saw” God—but because Abel trusted in God while Cain did not. In particular Abel, it seems reasonable to assume, trusted in God’s promises.

This is important, does faith mean “believe without seeing” or is it something closer to trust? In fact if you use a Greek Lexicon, you'll find that faith (pistis) is indeed related to trust and is never described as "believing in things for which there is no evidence."

Now is an opportune time to present a glorious list: the Cooperstown of faith. The Hall of Famers—all the believers who receive praise, by name, in Hebrews 11, for their great faith. A biblical who’s who. They are:

Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David and Samuel.

(Barak but not Deborah??—now that’s a hot potato.)

The writer could have mentioned the faith of some of the early Christians. He could have mentioned the apostles. He could have mentioned the woman at the well. Or the various people who desperately reached out to Christ and were healed. He could have, but he didn’t. As implied by verse two, Hebrews 11 is a testimony to the believers of old.

We need to make another point about this list. If you wanted to draw up a list of people who were poster children for blind faith the way it is usually meant (believing in God in spite of no evidence) this would not be it. Everyone on this list either saw and spoke with God, or witnessed some great deed of God’s. None of these people had any need for “blind faith.”

So what are they being praised for? What was unseen? The writer tells us. In fact he tells us twice:

¹³These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

³⁹And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, ⁴⁰ since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect. (Heb 11: 13,39-40)

These verses further confirm it is the faith of the Old Testament saints, because we, in the New Testament era, are contrasted as having something better.

What do we have that they didn’t? It’s fairly obvious. We have seen the promise of the Messiah fulfilled. They could only hope in the promise. The blindness of their faith was not a lack of evidence in creation for God—many of them talked to God. Their blindness, as it were, is that they lived and died without seeing the completed work of Christ, but they kept their faith in the promise.

Let us end this section by recalling the two questions asked earlier:

Who is the target of this praise? Is it all believers, or some particular group?

Is the faith being praised specific? To put it another way, what are the things hoped for and what are the things not seen? Is this broadly referring to “God”?

The answers we have found are:

The target of this praise is the saints of the Old Testament.

The things hoped for and not seen are the finished works of Jesus Christ.

We emphasize, again, that none of the saints singled out by name had any need of “blind faith” as that term is traditionally used.

3.2. Hebrews 11 seems to prove otherwise.

As stated in the previous section, if you use a Greek Lexicon, you'll find that faith (pistis) is in fact related to trust and is never described as "believing in things for which there is no evidence."

In the bible, faith goes way beyond believing (even the demons believe.) Faith means: I don't just try to obey God because I know I should, but I obey because I believe His plan is good.

When a Christian is told to live by faith, it is not intended that he should abandon his intellect and distrust his senses, but rather that, given God's law has been written on his heart, he should live as if he trusts that obeying that law is not just the correct but also the wise thing to do. That is what biblical "faith" is.

To get a little more academic, it is generally accepted that there are three major components of a saving faith.

1. Notitia refers to the fact that we have the correct knowledge or content. When we say we have faith, we obviously have faith in something. Notitia is the knowledge of that something. Today people often claim that sincerity in one’s faith is the most important aspect. Sincerity may be important, but it is not all important. What you believe has to be right. You may sincerely believe in reincarnation, but that is not part of a saving faith, but rather part of a damning faith. Being sincerely wrong is no virtue.

It does not mean you need a comprehensive knowledge (if so, we all would be lost), but there is some (undefined) minimum set of correct beliefs you must hold, such as the fact the God exists.

When the apostles proclaimed Christ, they provided content: Christ’s biography. They taught of Jesus’ life and his works, and how He fulfilled prophesy with His crucifixion and resurrection. They taught that men are sinners. This teaching is vital: before I can reach out for a savior I need to know that I need to be saved. With notitia I have the “theory” of Christianity; I have the content.

2. Assensus means that you not only have the notitia (content) but you also give intellectual assent to the content. This is a non-volitional agreement; you cannot will yourself or make a decision to believe. There may be a process by which you can ultimately reach a point where you can honestly affirm a proposition, either through education or divine intervention, but you cannot simply tell yourself: I will believe.

If I tell you that George Washington was the first president, that is notitia. It’s data. You may believe it, you may not. If you believe it, it is then assensus.

Many mistake assensus as the level of faith that produces salvation. This is not so; salvation comes at the third level. Assensus is belief, and belief is not enough for salvation. James teaches this when he famously refers to demons in his epistle:

You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. (James 2:19)

The demons have both notitia (correct content) and assensus (intellectual assent), but their faith was/is not a saving faith. It lacks the third component: fiducia. (Although even if they had it, it is not clear they would be saved. Nowhere is it mentioned that there exists a redemptive plan for fallen angels.)

As for real people, we have the example of Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8.

Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw. (Acts 8:13)

Yet Simon was cast away by Peter for not having a heart that was right with God (Acts 8:21), and went on (legend says) to launch a heresy that still exists in the form of new-age mysticism. Simon the Sorcerer believed; he had both notitia and assensus, but he did not have a saving faith. Christ’s explanation of the parable of the sower (Matt. 13) also teaches of those who believe but fall away.

We must not conflate belief and faith.

3. Fiducia is the complex “of the heart” faith, as opposed to the cerebral notitia and assensus. This relates to our conviction and passion. This is our conscience, our personal trust and reliance. This is the part of faith that goes beyond knowing that the bible teaches us not to steal, and acknowledging that stealing is a sin, to being convicted by the Holy Spirit that stealing is wrong.

With fiducia, we not only know the content of the gospel and believe it to be true, we also believe it to be good. This is clearly, in its entirety, a gift of God. Before regeneration, we are dead in sin and cannot seek or please God. After the gift of faith, we are radically violated; our heart is transplanted. We now (imperfectly) seek God. Our biblical knowledge is buttressed by conviction that God is good, and the things of God are greatly to be desired. This is in stark contrast to atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who argue that God is evil.

Apologetics, it can be said, is in the business of spreading notitia and fighting for assensus. Fiducia is out of the purview of apologetics; Fiducia is a gift from God.

When the Jews of the Exodus got in trouble for their failure of faith, it was not because they stopped believing in God. It was because they stopped believing that God's plan was good for them. When Peter's faith failed (on two well-known occasions) he didn't stop believing in Christ, he stopped trusting him.

What was the points of all this, and what does it have to do with science? The point is this: the faith contrasted with science is blind faith. But blind faith is not what the bible calls for. The bible calls for faith as described above, a much richer concept than “believing in the invisible.” This faith has no conflict with science, and if the beauty and wonder of creation can enhance faith in the promises of God, then all the better.

Let’s emphasize this a bit more, looking again at Hebrews 11. We’ll start with one of the more interesting characters in the Hall Of Fame: Gideon.

We can never discuss Gideon without bringing up two of the more humorous passages in scripture. One is when the angel of the Lord (which is a theophany, see v.23) first appears:

And the angel of the LORD appeared to him [Gideon] and said to him, "The LORD is with you, O mighty man of valor." (Judges 6:12)

Now our complete picture of Gideon tells us that in all likelihood the last thing he considered himself, at least at that time, was a man of valor. You can easily imagine him replying: "Are you talking to me?"

But an even funnier exchange occurs just a bit later:

And he [Gideon] said to him [the Lord], "If now I have found favor in your eyes, then show me a sign that it is you who speaks with me. Please do not depart from here until I come to you and bring out my present and set it before you." And he [the Lord] said, "I will stay till you return." (Judges 6:17-18)

Here Gideon asks God to stick around while he runs inside to get something, God answers. "Go on, take your time. I'll wait." You just have to love it.

Gideon returns and God displays his pleasure with Gideon’s gift by, um, burning it to ashes.

Later Gideon famously puts God to some additional testing:

Then Gideon said to God, "If you will save Israel by my hand, as you have said, behold, I am laying a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece alone, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you have said." And it was so. When he rose early next morning and squeezed the fleece, he wrung enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl with water. Then Gideon said to God, "Let not your anger burn against me; let me speak just once more. Please let me test just once more with the fleece. Please let it be dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground let there be dew." And God did so that night; and it was dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground there was dew. (Judges 6:36-40)

This is what gets Gideon in trouble—not with God or with the writer of Hebrews, but with Sunday School teachers teachers who say: "don’t be like Gideon." Well, to them I say: I'd very much love to be like Gideon. You will note that God does not rebuke Gideon for asking for proof. Our premium on blind faith and the view that proof somehow is demeaning to God is darn near 180 degrees off. Blind faith is never called for, and in fact the elevation of blind faith to a virtue is, in my opinion, demeaning to God. Made in his image, we are rational beings, and every indication in scripture tells me that God is quite pleased when we seek evidence (even through science), and when he is visibly present among us, he readily provides it.

So if God, or an angel of God, appears to me and says that he will send me to defeat the army of Iran with nothing more than a Ronco VegoMatic, I am going to behave just like Gideon.

Let’s look at some more examples that demonstrate that God is not demanding blind faith:

In the book of Judges, Gideon asks for multiple physical proofs that God was God. The proofs were given. My bible does not contain a footnote that reads: “and Gideon, after serving his military purpose, was cursed for demanding proof.”

When Moses asked to see God’s glory, God complied with the request. My bible does not contain a footnote that reads: “And Moses’ inability to rely solely on blind faith is the real reason he wasn’t allowed into the Promised Land.”

Psalm 19 teaches that the heavens declares God’s glory. My bible does not contain a footnote that reads: “but only as a crutch for the weak-minded.”

When Jesus forgave the sins of a lame man, he then healed the man. Instead of containing a footnote that reads: “and for those who required the latter, let them be anathema,” my bible reads that Jesus said it was so we may know the Son of Man has the authority on earth to forgive sins.

When Jesus appeared to the disciples after the resurrection, they thought they were seeing a ghost. He showed them he was flesh and blood, and that he could even eat. My bible does not contain a footnote that reads: “and their rewards in heaven were diminished because they relied on physical proof.”

Paul writes, in the letter to the Romans, that since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. My bible doesn’t have a footnote that reads: “but pay attention to that evidence at your own peril.” Instead, Paul adds that the reason for this (scientific data) is so that men are without excuse.

Even in the case of “doubting” Thomas, where Jesus allows Thomas to examine His wounds, and even though Jesus blesses those who believe without seeing, my bible does not contain a footnote that reads: “and Thomas was cast out for his reliance on proof.”

We conclude that saving faith is more complex than blind faith, and in fact blind faith is not called for. It is blind faith that us incompatible with science. Biblical faith is not.

³²See here for the complete article.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Science and Faith at War? 2 What is science? What is not science?

2 What is science? What is not science?

The philosophy of science is a rich field and we have no time to dig into its complexities. Instead we will just scratch the surface. For our purposes what is important is that we understand the distinction between two naturalisms: philosophical and methodological. The former is not science, but both anti-theistic scientists and anti-science theists, in a case of strange bedfellows, will claim it as such. It is the second, methodological naturalism, that is properly called science.

2.1. Philosophical Naturalism: The cosmos is all there is.

Last year I started to watch the Truth Project²⁷, a video series put out by Focus on the Family. This project presented a serious distortion, though whether it was by intent or through ignorance I cannot say.

What the Truth Project did was to present as their quintessential bogeyman scientist the late astronomer and television celebrity Carl Sagan. In particular, they took great advantage of Sagan’s famous quip:²⁸

The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.

Additionally they presented another egregious example of philosophical/methodological conflation from Cornell biologist William Provine. This charming man (who also appears in Ben Stein’s Expelled) writes:²⁹

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.

The Truth Project could have found literally thousands of atheistic scientists, prominent and garden-variety, who—while they may agree that the cosmos is all there is—would have been careful to point out that what they were stating was an opinion, not a scientific fact.

Philosophical naturalism is not science. It is the philosophy that everything, ultimately, has a scientific explanation. It is, quite simply, the denial of the supernatural. But science per se does not and can not deny the supernatural. By definition the supernatural, if it exists, is outside the province of science. If it could be explained and addressed by science, it would be natural, not supernatural. The miracles of the Bible are inexplicable (by science) events—they are not parlor tricks.

Officially what science has to say about the supernatural is that it has nothing to say about the supernatural.

Richard Dawkins, perhaps in his role as this generation’s spokesman for atheism, is also guilty of perpetuating this error, no doubt with malice aforethought. A central theme of Dawkins’s The God Delusion is that the existence of God is a scientific question. His motivation is rather transparent: to declare the question resides in the domain of science, so he can then state that science effectively proves the negative. In fact, the existence of God when he interacts with the world, at certain times and in certain ways, would be scientifically observable. The miracles of Jesus could have been recorded had the technology been available. But in general God is operating in a supernatural realm, and that realm is not in the domain of science. Instead we “settle” for the beauty of the secondary causes—the laws of nature God established to have an ordered universe.

The Truth Project presented scientists like Sagan and Provine as if they were speaking on science rather than on philosophy. This provided them with simple, highly unsympathetic targets. In their way the creators of the Truth Project are guilty of fomenting anti-science attitudes among Christians.

2.2. Methodological Naturalism: Let’s operate as if the cosmos is all there is.

Science and the scientific method does not state that the cosmos is all there is. Instead it operates as if the cosmos is all there is. The qualifier “as if” is small but important. It means that science says nothing about the supernatural—it simply precedes along with no expectation that the supernatural will intrude in an experiment, nor will it’s invocation be required to explain a result.

The overwhelming majority of scientists would agree that science has nothing to say about the existence of God. That is, most scientists, of all stripes, would disagree with Sagan and Dawkins and the Truth Project, and support methodological naturalism.

Examples are easy to find. Even at the National Center for Science Education, which is leading the fight in the United States against Intelligent Design, takes that position, contra Sagan and Dawkins. Eugenie Scott, the NSCE director wrote:³⁰

Religion may use natural explanations for worldly phenomena, but reserves the right to explain through divine intervention; science has no such option. Whether or not miracles occur, they cannot be part of a scientific explanation.

That is methodological naturalism, and it is quite different from philosophical naturalism, which states “miracles do not occur, period.”

Science is indeed godless—but only in the sense that it is agnostic. And it is agnostic in the same way that theology is agnostic. Scientists can do science whether or not they believe in God. And the same goes for theologians.

2.3. Show me the experiment!

Methodological naturalism is the time-tested approach to do doing science. There is, however, a practical side of science. Science must be testable. It must make unique, positive predictions. By positive, we mean that if theory B is proposed as a superior alternative to theory A, then theory B must do more than say “theory A cannot explain this data or that data.” Theory B must state: if you do this experiment we predict you will get this result—and if you don’t, well, then I guess we’re wrong.

This can be summarized by stating that a scientific theory must be falsifiable. In a definition that we will later use to our advantage, Wikipedia states:³¹

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that it is capable of being criticized by observational reports. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.

Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.

Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically. On the other hand, a statement like "there exist parallel universes which cannot interact with our universe" is not falsifiable even in principle; there is no way to test whether such a universe does or does not exist.

One of the mistakes we will see that the Intelligent Design community makes is to couple their claim that evolution is wrong with an attendant claim that ID is a legitimate science. The latter is, at best, premature: Intelligent Design proposes no experiments that will confirm or refute an ID prediction.

²⁷ See here for details.
²⁸ Carl Sagan, Cosmos, (New York: Ballantine Books, 1985).
²⁹ See here for more details.
³⁰ See here for more details.
³¹ See here for more details.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Science and Faith at War? 1.4 Christians v. Scientists, what’s the score?

Notes from a Sunday School that begins on May 25.

Comments, corrections, and routine editing: absolutely welcomed!

An index of all posts is on the right frame.

Location: Grace Baptist Chapel
805 Todd's Lane
Hampton, VA 23666
Time: 10:00-10:45 am

1.4 Christians v. Scientists, what’s the score?

In this section we look at just a few of the conflicts between science and the Bible. Of course, we now understand that they actually represent disputes between scientists and theologians, or scientists and Christians..

i. Heliocentricity

This is, perhaps, the most famous example. Does the sun rotate about the earth, or the earth about the sun? By now virtually everyone agrees²³ that the earth rotates about the sun, and the sun rotates in the Milky Way, etc. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), a Polish astronomer and contemporary of Martin Luther, is generally credited with firmly establishing this fact scientifically.

Copernicus’ sun-centered cosmology provided simplicity in explaining the sixteenth century’s database of astronomical observations. For example, the retrograde motion of Mars’ orbit, quite inexplicable in an earth centered system, is easily understood, at least qualitatively, in Copernicus's heliocentric system.

When the earth is on the opposite side of the sun from Mars, clearly Mars will appear to be moving to the “left.” When they are on the same side the earth, which moves faster (because it is closer to the sun) will out race Mars, which will then appear to mover to the “right,” as shown.

Responding to Copernican theory, Martin Luther is purported to have stated, presumably referring to Copernicus: ²⁴

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth [Joshua 10:10–15]"

The important fact to remember here is the Bible never states the sun rotates about the earth. It only uses figures of speech, such as the “sun rose.” If the Bible did say the earth was the center of the universe, then we would have a real problem on our hands, but it doesn’t. The insistence from some theologians was based, in part, on the assumption that God would place the pinnacle of creation at the center of the universe, and was reinforced by casual observation. But assuming God would do what we would do if we were god makes for very bad theology. That bad assumption is the basis for both types of liberal theology. The classic liberal theologian assumes that God is as “nice” as he would be if he were god, so all the vengeance-is-mine baggage gets tossed overboard. And the liberal theologian of the right, the legalist, assumes that even though God didn’t inspire scripture prohibiting this or that, surely he intended to.

In fact as we’ll discus in more detail later, not only did God not put us at the center of the universe, God could not do it, because God created a universe with no center. To put us at the center of a universe that has no center would be a violation of the Law of Non-contradiction. Nothing, not even God, can be something and its opposite at the same time and same place and in the same relationship.

This would seem to be a clear victory for the scientists, although perhaps an “asterisk” is in order, given that Copernicus was a devout believer, who wrote: ²⁵

After I had pondered at length this lack of certainty in traditional mathematics concerning the movements of the spheres of the world, I became increasingly annoyed that the philosophers, who in other respects made such a careful scrutiny of the smallest details of the world, had nothing better to offer to explain the workings of the machinery of the world which is after all built for us by the Best and Most Orderly Workman of all.

Still, this one goes to the scientists: Scientists 1, Theologians 0.

ii. The start of the Universe.

In its opening verse, the Bible makes its most profound scientific claim:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1:1)

Our universe, according to the writer of Genesis, began. There was a “time” when it wasn’t, followed by a time when it was.

In the early twentieth century the scientific consensus was quite different. The prevailing cosmology was the Steady State theory. This held that while the earth and stars had a beginning, the universe as a whole “always was, and always will be.” Endless recycling occurred, powered by a matter-producing engine maintaining a steady density. Here is a rare case of scientists, including such luminaries as Eddington, Hoyle, and Einstein, claiming something that could not be reconciled with the Bible, ever. An infinitely old universe had no causal event that could be attributed to God. An infinitely old universe renders God unnecessary.

The support for the theory was largely philosophical. A universe with a beginning had obvious theistic overtones. Something that begins is something that was caused. The famous British astronomer, Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944) said, with admirable honesty regarding his priorities: ²⁶Philosophically the notion of a beginning of the present order is repugnant to me. I should like to find a genuine loophole. I simply do not believe the present order of things started off with a bang …the expanding Universe is preposterous… it leaves me cold… We [must] allow evolution an infinite time to get started.”The “bang” of Eddington refers to is the Big Bang, the cosmology that supplanted the Steady State model and remains, though in a more sophisticated form, the prevailing theory. The Big Bang resulted from the painstaking observations provided by American astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) that the universe is expanding. Run that tape backwards and the implication of a beginning is clear. We will have more to say about the Big Bang later, but for it serves our purpose that science, in a certain sense reluctantly, came around to accept what the Bible taught. The universe is of finite age.

Scientists 1, Theologians 1.

iii. Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture?

First, a little relevant history. Many Christians, across denominations, consider Augustine of Hippo (354-430) to be the greatest theologian of the first millennium. One of many lasting contributions, a formulation of Original Sin that we still affirm, came about innocently enough. Augustine had a prayer:

Grant what You command, and command what You desire.

Enter the monk Pelagius (ca. 354- ca. 420/440) a native of the British Isles, although whether he was Irish or English is not clear (Augustine calls him English, Jerome calls him Irish.) He is the first Briton to make a contribution to literature, writing a Latin commentary to the Pauline epistles.

Pelagius disputed Augustine’s famous prayer. He argued that it is unnecessary for God to “grant” what he commands of us. Instead, according to Pelagius, it is possible for man, on his own, to fulfill God’s commandments. Pelagius believed that moral responsibility implied moral ability; it would be unjust for God to demand that we obey and yet arrange it so that we are born with the inability to do so.

Augustine (and Reformed theology) teaches something quite different: you have moral responsibility but, in your natural state, moral inability. In other words, apart from grace, you cannot choose not to sin. The fall did not change the requirement of obedience, but it changed us radically. And, apart from grace, we are doomed.

To put it as succinctly as possible:

  Pelagius: God would not punish us for how we are born.

  Augustine: Yes he would, each and every one of us, which is why we need a savior.

Attacking Augustine and his doctrine on original sin, Pelagius argued that human nature was created good. Pelagius had a role for grace: it facilitates our quest for moral perfection, but it is not absolutely required. At least in principle we can do without grace. Augustine, on the other hand, argued that grace is not only helpful but required.

As we know, Augustine won the day. Pelagius was condemned at the synod of Carthage in 418. Subsequent councils affirmed the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy and reaffirmed the doctrine of original sin.

Now consider the following imaginary yet familiar debate:

  Non-Christian: Homosexuals are born that way. They don’t choose to be gay.

  Christian: No they aren’t. They make a moral choice.

What do you call the Christian? Well, in a certain way you call him a heretic. For his premise in holding fast to the position that homosexuals are not born that way is not just semi but full-blown Pelagian. This Christian, like Pelagius, is insisting that God would never give the moral responsibility without the moral ability to comply. In fact, both sides in this debate accept the erroneous premise that God wouldn’t punish us for how we are born. One side says: "But we are born that way, therefore God would not punish us." The other side says: "You are correct, God would not punish you if you were born that way, therefore you weren’t.

Everything I know about Augustine and Pelagius tells me that in the little debate above over homosexuality, on the point of whether it was a condition of birth, Augustine, the saint, would be sympathetic with the “non-Christian” position and Pelagius, the heretic, with the “Christian.”

The Augustinian response would be: Maybe you are born that way, but that’s no get-out-of-jail-free card. We all are born sinners.

Now in terms of science, the data are ambiguous. The best guess at the moment is that the answer is “both.” There is a predisposition toward homosexuality but that is not always the explanation. The point here is that the fact that some people being born gay fits naturally with Christian theology. Christians should not be Pelagian in this question.

The jury’s still out on this one. Let’s call it a tie:

Scientists 1, Theologians 1, and 1 draw.

²³ But not truly everyone. Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis argues strongly in favor of geocentrism. See here for more details.
²⁴ There is some uncertainty here. It is from Luther’s Table Talk, or transcriptions of dinner conversations. The quote was reported by a student named Anton Lauterbach, who copied down the conversation.
²⁵ Copernicus, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, 1543.
²⁶ Eddington, The End of the World from the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics, Nature, 127, p. 450, 1931.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Science and Faith at War? 1.3 God is not a god of confusion

Notes from a Sunday School that begins on May 25.

Comments, corrections, and routine editing: absolutely welcomed!

An index of all posts is on the right frame.

A blog with only the Sunday School Posts is here.

Location: Grace Baptist Chapel
805 Todd's Lane
Hampton, VA 23666
Time: 10:00-10:45 am

1.3 God is not a God of Confusion

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. (1 Cor. 14:33)

This section is really a summary and reiteration of the previous two. In those sections we discussed four topics:

The Bible, which we are taking to be the perfect, inerrant, and inspired word of God.
Creation, which we are taking to be God’s perfect handiwork—perfect in the sense that He made it exactly as he intended. Creation reflects the creator—it is not meant to be a deception. And, unlike virtually all other religions, as well as some enduring heresies, creation for the Christian is good, not bad. The material word is good, not bad. Our Lord had and has a physical body.
Theology, which we saw was a demonstrably imperfect way to study what is perfect (the Bible.)
Science, which is also a demonstrably imperfect way to study what is perfect (creation.)

We can say then that we understand the SAT-like analogy: ²²

Bible:theology :: Creation:science

When we say “God is not a god of confusion,” we are stating that what is perfect cannot be in conflict. Perfection must be self-consistent. The Bible and creation may, for the most part, each speak to is own magisterium, but when they do overlap, no matter how much or little that occurs, there can be “No Final Conflict.” When apparent disagreement occurs, it is always, always to be understood as occurring between imperfect theologians (often of the armchair variety) and scientists (ditto.)

The recurring problem is that when inevitable disagreements arise on the right of this picture, Christians often state that science is disagreeing with the Bible rather than first asking whether it is just their theology that is under fire. Some scientists, interestingly enough, will agree with them, for it suits their philosophy to have their science in conflict with scripture.

At the risk over overkill, we make the same point one more time with a picture:

²² SAT “like” because, alas, these venerable constructs have been removed from the SAT.

Monday, May 26, 2008

Science and Faith at War? 1.2 General Revelation and Science

1.2 General Revelation and Science

General Revelation is knowledge of God that is readily available to all mankind through creation and providence. We all know the “negative” perspective of general revelation: it leaves all men without excuse:

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)

The flip side is this: if creation leaves men with no excuse for their dismissal of God, then it must, in fact, make a convincing though presumably incomplete case for God’s existence. Indeed, there are five major arguments for the existence of God based on General Revelation: ²⁰

Cosmological Argument (Cause and effect). The universe is the effect of a greater cause, an intelligent Creator. The universe cannot create itself or come from nothing, therefore must have come from something else. God then, is the single uncaused cause.
Teleological Argument (Order/Intelligent Design). The universe displays an amazing amount of order in its chaos. But even more, it exhibits design which necessitates a Designer.
Anthropological Argument (Humanity reflects deity) – Man’s extraordinary abilities, superiority over creation, and his “mannishness” (Schaeffer) reflect a greater personal Creator. Some stress man’s rational abilities, while others see the relationships with the Trinity as key to man’s personality.
Moral Argument (Common Grace) – All men have some sense of right and wrong and some set of common behavioral code. Man’s sense of morality reflects the divine image of a moral God.
Ontological Argument (God’s definition requires existence) – Anselm first set forth this powerful and difficult argument. It argues that the definition of God as the greatest of beings necessitates His existence. 1) The idea of a thing is greater if it exists in reality, rather than only in the mind. 2) Man conceives the greatest being – God. 3) For the idea to exist in the mind as “greatest” it must exist in reality or not be the greatest.

We will not comment on the validity of these proofs, as we will have no further need of them.

Some argue that the Fall has somewhat lessened the power of General Revelation. For example, B. B. Warfield writes:²¹

Only in Eden has general revelation been adequate to the needs of man. Not being a sinner, man in Eden had no need of that grace of God itself by which sinners are restored to communion with Him, or of the special revelation of this grace of God to sinners to enable them to live with God.

As we did with Special Revelation, we shall adopt a working definition:

General Revelation: information concerning God available to all men through observation of creation.

We quoted Rom 1:20 above. Another well-known and relevant passage is:

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. (Ps. 19:1)

In reading just these two passages we get a sense of awe—that creation is a form of revelation substantive enough to declare God’s glory. We also get a sense of both responsibility and approval, that the study of creation is a godly endeavor that will be profitable to us and acceptable to God.

What we do not get is any sense whatsoever that the study of creation is a kind of intellectual trap—that it is a test of faith. There is no biblical support for the idea that we are to study creation just to overcome what we learn in some bizarre exercise designed to strengthen our faith in the unseen. It will be what we learn buy studying creation that is glorifying to God, not the denial what we learn.

Although General Revelation glorifies God, at this point things get a little murky. At this point science enters the arena. What is science? Later we will look at a more precise definition. For now, however, we will simplify its meaning to:

Science: A human intellectual activity that seeks to appreciate and understand the wonders of creation.

Science is the imperfect way that humans examine the handiwork of God. That science is imperfect almost as easy to demonstrate as the fact that theology is imperfect. The landscape is littered with discarded theories, and at any given moment there will be competing and incompatible theories attempting to explain the latest data. Scientists would argue that these imperfections are part of the process and that science, given time, is self-correcting, and that’s true. But nevertheless just like a group of intelligent, well-meaning theologians will look at the same book (the Bible) and reach vastly different conclusions, some intelligent and well-meaning scientists will look at the same data concerning the same aspect of creation and still produce opposing theories.

Our point, as we conclude this section, is that while we have a reliable laboratory (creation), we have a powerful demonstrably imperfect method of interpreting and understanding the data. We believe there is an important ramification of this. When we have a collision between one scientific theory and another, or between theology and science, we should be willing to examine the possibility our erroneous scientific theory is the source of or contributes to the conflict.

²⁰ Taken from http://www.basictheology.com/definitions/General_Revelation/
²¹ Article "Revelation," from The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
James Orr, General Editor, v. 4, pp. 2573-2582. Pub. Chicago, 1915, by the Howard-Severance Co.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Science and Faith at War? 1.1 Special Revelation and Theology

1.1 Special Revelation and Theology

God has provided two broad modes by which He communicates His redemptive plan to us. The first we will look at is called Special Revelation. Consider this compact and straightforward definition from Tim Challies:⁹

Special Revelation has been unfolded through history. It began with God revealing Himself to just one man – the first man. Then he revealed Himself to a family, then to a tribe, a nation, a race and then finally to the whole world.

Special Revelation speaks about the same things as [General] Revelation (see § 1.2, General Revelation and Science.), but does so in more detail. It also speaks of things that [General] Revelation does not and cannot. We learn further details about God’s existence and power and we learn more about His wrath, including the reasons behind it.

Challies also lists ways in which God has revealed Himself through Special Revelation.¹⁰ With a few modifications:

God speaking directly. God has spoken directly and audibly to people.
God becoming man (Theophanies).¹¹ Several times in history God revealed Himself in human form.
Prophecy. God spoke through the mouths of prophets. These men and women, when they prophesied, spoke God’s words with their voices.
Casting of lots.¹² God made his will known through seemingly random events. If God controls everything in the world, this must include things as small as a roll of a dice or casting of a lot.
Urim and Thummin.¹³ These were ancient tools used by ancient Israel. We know very little about them, except that they communicated God’s revelation to Israelite priests.
Dreams and Visions.¹⁴ Dreams and visions have been used to reveal something about God or His will.
Jesus Christ. God’s primary means of Special Revelation is through the ministry of Jesus Christ. “Listen to Him” God told Peter (Matt. 17:5). Jesus said, “"My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.” (John 7:16), and “For I have given them the words that you gave me,” (John 17:8).
The Apostles. Jesus bestowed teaching authority upon the apostles. The New Testament is clear that the apostles, through the Holy Spirit, are supernaturally empowered as teachers. For example, they can, years later, reliably write the Gospels because their memory is provided by the Spirit.¹⁵ Furthermore, they are granted their authority to speak by Jesus Himself.¹⁶
The Bible. God’s practical means of Special Revelation is through The Bible. It can be thought of this way: Jesus was God the Father’s messenger.¹⁷ The apostles were the messengers of Jesus. Their message, which by the preceding chain is easily understood to be God’s message, maintained its integrity through the workings of the Holy Spirit and is provided to us through the New Testament.

This is an interesting list. God has, as the writer of Hebrews declares, has spoken “in many times and in many ways.” (Heb 1:1). However, for the purposes of this study we shall use a working definition:

Special Revelation: The detailed knowledge of God’s redemptive plan made known to us today through the Bible.

In the Bible, we have a perfect, sufficient, inerrant¹⁸ source of Special Revelation.

At that point, however, things get a bit murky. At that point, theology enters the arena. What is theology? Again, we will use a working definition.

Theology: A human intellectual activity that seeks to develop sound doctrine and practice based on Special Revelation, i.e., by interpreting scripture.

Theology is the imperfect way that humans wade through the perfect Bible, attempting to classify, clarify, and personalize the text.

We know from painful experience that this practice is greatly flawed. From one perfect source, the human practice of theology produces, among well meaning, God fearing, inerrancy affirming, scholarly men and women: Armininans and Calvinists; millennialists of at least four flavors and even more subtypes; dispensational and covenant systematics; old and new “perspectives” on Paul, old and young earth creationists; proponents of believers’ baptism and paedobatism; culture engagement game plans ranging from separation of church and state (invented, by the way, by the Baptists) to the culture warriors of the religious right, all the way up to the so-called reconstructionists or theonomists.

And that’s just a short list. The prima facie evidence that theology is, to put it mildly, an imprecise endeavor, is the very definition of overwhelming.

This is by no means an indictment against the practice of theology. On the contrary, it is biblically mandated as a profitable activity.¹⁹

To further drive this point home, consider the passage:

And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." (Dan:9:27)

If your eschatology is amillennial, the “he” refers to the Messiah. On the other hand, for dispensational premillennialists, “he” is the antichrist. Somebody is going to be quite embarrassed.

Truly, theology might be the most error prone of all human intellectual activities. The disagreements are as vast as those in politics. That is all the more remarkable when you consider that in the theologies we are contrasting, all parties agree a priori to use the same textbook, and all agree that the instruction therein is perfect.

Our point, as we conclude the section, is that while we have a reliable text, we have a demonstrably imperfect method of interpreting and understanding that text. We believe there are two important ramifications of this:

We should be very careful as to what we include in our circle of orthodoxy. That is, what we define as the minimal set of beliefs that must be held by a Christian should be exactly that: minimal.²⁰
When we have a collision between one theology and another, or between theology and science, we should be willing to examine the possibility that an erroneous theology is the source of or contributes to the conflict.

To reiterate the second point: we must never preclude the possibility of a theological error by mistaking it for a biblical error. Those are two very different beasts.

This will be clarified further after we examine the second great mode of God’s revelation.

⁹ See this Tim Challies post.
¹⁰ Ibid., with some modifications.
¹¹ E.g., Jud. 13:22; Luke. 3:22
¹² E.g., Jonah 1.7; Acts 1:16.
¹³ This little understood method of divination is mentioned several times in the Old Testament. For example: He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the LORD. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in. (Num. 27:21) See also 1 Sam. 28:3-6. Many believe the terms actually refer to objects involved in the divination, such as the high priest’s breastplate. See the Jewish Encyclopedia article.
¹⁴ E.g., Gen. 31:24; Acts 9:10.
¹⁵ Speaking to the apostles, Jesus said: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (John 14:26)
¹⁶ Speaking to the apostles, Jesus said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” (John 13:20)
¹⁷ Speaking to the apostles, Jesus said: “And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.” (John 14:26)
¹⁸ The inerrancy is limited to the original autographs. We acknowledge the possibility of transcription errors, translation errors, and redactions. For the purposes of this work, we uphold the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
¹⁹ Now these [Berean] Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:11).
²⁰ Here the historic creeds of the church are helpful. For example the Nicene Creed. No eschatological wars there—it simply states what all Christians can agree with, that someday Christ will return in glory to judge the living and the dead.
²¹ Article "Revelation," from The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, General Editor, v. 4, pp. 2573-2582. Pub. Chicago, 1915, by the Howard-Severance Co.

Friday, May 16, 2008

Science and Faith at War? 1. Introduction

1. Introduction

Increasingly, it seems as if science and faith are at war. The bestseller lists include The God Delusion¹ which celebrates atheistic rationalism and science, and denigrates religion as nothing less than child abuse.² In the movie theaters, we find Ben Stein’s Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed³ arguing that atheist scientists control the academy and tolerate no dissent, and that the theory of evolution was a prerequisite for the Eugenics movement and the Holocaust.

Here is just an example of the degree of belligerence in the rhetoric. On the Trinity Broadcasting Network, Ben Stein said in an interview with Paul Crouch, Jr.⁴

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Of course, verbal assaults of this type (and worse) are found on both sides of the aisle.

As Christians we can approach this war, if there is a war, only one way. We must ask: is our participation in this conflict justified? Is science the enemy of our faith? And why stop there—is archeology an enemy? Is history? Are atheists our enemies? Do we have any external enemies at all? Do we not affirm that He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world? Is this all really an example of the aphorism: we have met the enemy, and he is us?

These are difficult questions. When we narrow the focus to science, however, we reduce the question to this: does the detailed and systematic study of creation (science) glorify God? If so, then science is a godly activity, and Christians dare not call that which is good, evil.⁵

This study will attempt to demonstrate that such is indeed the case. The Bible has not only sanctioned science, but has mandated its practice. The world might declare that there is a war between science and faith⁶, but Christians should show up as peacemakers, not combatants.

We must also ask a deeper, more painful question. The issue is not limited to whether or not we are well-intentioned but misguided combatants. We must also ask: are we the agitators? Was the truce between scientists in the academy and Christianity broken by our side? Did an army of atheist scientists launch a Tet Offensive against Christianity and we are merely responding defensively? Or, under the guise of the culture wars, did we lob the first grenade?

When asking such introspective questions, we will be well advised to consider the words of Augustine:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn...⁷

Augustine is not telling us that we should accept uncritically all that science teaches. He is stating, as I read it, a) a tacit approval of science and b) a forceful warning that if we (Christians) are to engage debate on scientific matters, we should do so from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance.

While this is not a traditional bible study Sunday School, we nevertheless will do our best to support our positions from scripture. The attitudes of Christians toward science and the politicization of science as a front in the larger culture wars should be measured against scripture. Speaking of which, this study will take the position that scripture, in the original autographs, is inspired and inerrant.

We will not, however, take the position that either any individual Christian or even a majority opinion of renowned Christian theologians is infallible.

That especially goes for the author of this study. It is your responsibility as a Christian reader to provide correction.

Unless otherwise indicated, all scriptural references are from the ESV.⁸

Finally, during this study if it appears that we are tougher on ourselves (Christians) than on the world, that is purely by intent.

¹ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, First Mariners Book Edition, Houghton Mifflin, New York, 2008.
² For example, Dawkins writes that labeling children by their parent’s believes, e.g., “a Catholic boy,” is a form of abuse: “Isn’t it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought out?” The God Delusion, p. 354.
³ http://www.expelledthemovie.com
⁴ As reported by John Derbyshire, National Review Online, The Corner blog, April 30, 2008. A search on youtube for “Stein science killing” should lead you to a video clip.
⁵ See Is. 5:20. Also, the “Unpardonable Sin” is the ultimate “calling good, evil” violation, when Jesus’ miracles were attributed to Satan.
⁶ Although we will actually attempt to show that it is only a radical though vocal minority of atheist scientists who declare war. The overwhelming majority are unconcerned about the personal beliefs of their colleagues.
⁷ Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translation by J. H. Taylor, Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, V41.
⁸ The English Standard Version Bible, Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.

EDIT 1: slight word mods, and a fixed typo.
EDIT 2: Inserted Stein's comment about science leads to killing.