An Explanation From Evolution (#2-5)

If, according to Social Darwinism, our cognitive faculties only tell us what we need to survive, and not what is true, why trust them about anything at all?

And yet there may indeed be a rational explanation from evolution for the persistence of belief. The Reverend Randy Alcorn sometimes presents his audience with two creation stories and asks them if it matters which one is true:

In the secular account, “You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago. The arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. At death you will cease to exist.  In short, you came from nothing and are going nowhere.”

In the Christian account, “You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. Created in His image, with capacities to think, feel, and worship that set you above all other life forms. You differ from the animals not simply in degree but in kind. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind.”

Now imagine two groups of people – a secular tribe and a religious tribe.  Which of these tribes is more likely to survive, prosper and multiply?  To quote Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, “The vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.”

[The preceding is taken almost verbatim from What’s so Great about Christianity by Dinesh D’Souza]

Next time: Summing up the ironies of those-who-don’t-know-God.  In Christ…

A God Module? (#2-4)

Darwin, with a candor that is rare in atheist, wrote, “The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.” Nonetheless Darwinists, such as Christopher Dawkins and E. O. Wilson and many others, since they are unable to prove that a creator does not exist desperately seek a natural explanation for why people believe in a creator.
Dawkins suggested that belief is caused by “hyperactivity in a particular node of the brain” speculating that “the idea of immortality survives and spreads because it caters to wishful thinking.”
The psychologist Steven Pinker offers up a “God module” in the brain that predisposes people to believe in a creator.
Ironically, evolutionary science itself dismisses Dawkins’ wishful thinking argument. A freezing person will not survive by simply thinking he is warm, and when confronted by a lion, a man will not emerge alive by imagining it is a rabbit. Such nonsense is not going to persist in the species as these individuals will either freeze to death or be devoured. As for a God module in the brain, Dinesh D’Souza asks, “If a God module produces an irrational belief in God, how about a “Darwin module” that produces an irrational belief in God modules?”
Furthermore, if we cannot trust our belief-forming faculties to tell us the truth about God, why should we trust them to tell us the truth about anything, including evolutionary science? 

Elephant Analogy (#2-3)

Adherents of Strong Rationalism established what they call the “verification principle”: no one should believe a proposition unless it can be proved rationally by logic or directly experienced by the senses. Proof, in this view, is an argument so strong no one thinking clearly can have any reasons for not believing it. Strong rationalists demand this kind of “proof” for God. The irony is that there is no similarly airtight proof for strong rationalism. Strong rationalism has to be taken on faith.
We now turn to “you cannot know” and what I call “The Elephant Analogy Error.” This error is a self-defeating rationalization for not accepting the existence of a creator. The Elephant Analogy Error supposes that each God- based religion sees only some small part of spiritual truth, but none are able to see the whole truth. Thus, it is claimed, people should simply forgo the search for truth because we are incapable of seeing it fully.
An often used metaphor demonstrates the limitation of this self refuting notion: that of the elephant and the blind men. Religions, it is said, are like blind men examining an elephant. Each one makes an independent conclusion about the nature of the elephant: it is like a snake, no it is thin and flat, no it is like a tree, and so on.
The irony is that the story is told from the point of view of someone who is not blind. How can they know that each blind man only sees part of the elephant unless they claim to be able to see the whole elephant? 

Science and Faith (#2-2)

Let’s examine the ironies in three of the most common rationale used by those-who-don’t-know-God:

• Science and strong rationalism;
  
• what I call “The Elephant Analogy Error,”
  
• And lastly Social Darwinism.
  I organize these perceptions under two headlines: ü “You can’t prove it.”
  ü And “You cannot know.”
  The “you can’t prove it” argument is based on a misunderstanding of science and its limits. Many who reject the idea of God do so not because they have proof that there is no creator, but because, they argue, it cannot be proven that God exists. A counterpoint is to reflect back the argument and ask “If proof is the criteria, can you apply it to your own fundamental assumptions?”
  The scientist must assume there is a natural cause because natural causes are the only type its methodology can address. However, science has not proven there can’t be any other type of cause.
  There is no scientific means for testing the statement, ”No supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon is possible.” Consequently, the assertion that there cannot be supernatural causes is a philosophical presupposition and not a scientific finding. To claim science proves supernatural causes can’t exist when science, by its nature, is incapable of discerning or testing for supernatural causes; is a self-refuting argument. It is like a drunk insisting on looking for his lost keys only under the streetlight because the light is better there. In fact, it goes the drunk one better: it insists that because the keys can’t be found in the dark, they have to be under the light. 
  

Everyone has Faith (#2-1)

Our objective in evangelizing is assisting those-who-don’t-know-God to closely examine, their underlying beliefs. To motivate them to explore “What reasons do I have for believing what I do? How do I know what I believe is valid?" Evangelization is speaking from your heart directly to the heart of your listener. As St. Peter specified - with gentleness and reverence. You are trying to win both the listener’s mind and heart. As we learned previously, the most effective way to achieve that is through genuine curiosity armed with questions.
To frame those questions so that you guide the discussion in the direction you discern the Holy Spirit wants to take it you have to have the “lay of the land.” That is what Find Your Catholic Voice attempts to provide.
Everyone has a worldview. A set of beliefs that, for a specific individual, explain what life is all about, who they are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing.
Each and every one of us has a set of faith-assumptions about the nature of things: unproven answers to fundamental questions each person adopts, whether consciously or not.
Faith in some viewpoint of existence – a world view - informs everyone’s life. Whether it is “love is all you need,” or that humans are merely the result of random circumstances, or there is a creator God that we should seek to know; and so on... In short, it is not only Christians, but everyone operates from one or more personal beliefs – faith assumptions that cannot be scientifically proven. 

Good Enough (#1-14)

You don’t have to hit a home run in every conversation. You don’t even have to get on base. Sometimes just getting up to bat is sufficient for God’s purpose. It is always a step in the right direction when we help others think more clearly. We have very limited control over how other people respond to us. That is largely in God’s hands. We can help to dispel some of the fog — and we ought to try. But at the end of the day, a person’s deep-seated rebellion against God is a problem only a supernatural solution can fix. When all else fails, let it go. Walk away. If the steamroller won’t let you answer, listen politely until he’s finished, then drop it. Let him have the satisfaction of having the last word, then shake the dust off your feet and bow out graciously: “Bob, it sounds like you know a lot more about this than I do, and you have some interesting ideas. Let me think about it. Maybe we can talk more later.”
Always keep in mind that those who-don’t-know-God are not enemies; recall how Jesus of Nazareth responded to hostility as he hung nailed to a cross: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And, sometimes, your real audience is not the person you’re talking to; it is those who are listening in.
We have covered a variety of situations and circumstances in
evangelizing. But for just starting out - and even for the experienced - the most effective tactic is genuine curiosity coupled with questions:
What do you mean by “atheist”?
Tell me about the God you don’t believe in...
Do you believe in any kind of god or universal spirit?
Here is the best guidance I have when evangelizing: A good listener never interrupts. The best listener pauses for 2 seconds, then offers a reply... or better still, asks a question. 

Open Your Fists (#1-13)

When making a point it helps to verbally open your fists.
“Let me see if I understand you correctly...” Then feed back your understanding to make sure you got it right. When you first say something like, “It’s my understanding that . . .” or “This is the way it seems to me,” then explain your position and invite a response, you indicate you are provisional in your claims. Yes, you have convictions, but they are open to discussion. Here are some additional ways to preface making a point or a claim:
“Would you consider an alternative, or be willing to look at another angle?”
“I wouldn’t characterize it that way. Here’s what I think... Now tell me what you think.”
“I don’t think that’s going to work, and I’d like to suggest why. Is that okay with you?”
“I’m not sure I agree with the way you put it. Think about this . . .” “That is an interesting point, and yet my understanding is....”
In summary, Jesus offered us this advice: “Be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves.” I think one of the things he had in mind was that we should be clever in our approach [prepare, do our homework, have a strategy, practice tactics], yet remain innocent in how we come across.