Christian Piatt Blog

Intelligent design: Making a mockery of science

By Christian Piatt

(This column originally appeared in the Pueblo Chieftain newspaper)

I listened to a sermon series on intelligent design recently. The minister went through the many sophisticated organs, cells and systems within the human body, and after each example, he pulled out a coin. He went from cellular mitochondria to the visual cortex, pointing out each time how unlikely this system was to occur by accident. Each point was punctuated by another coin.

Many systems within the body are built upon preceding ones, and conditions had to be just right for us to become what we are, he pointed out. By the end, he had fifteen coins laid out on the lectern. The odds of flipping those fifteen coins and having them all land heads-up was about one in thirty-three thousand. How much more unlikely, then, are we to be here?

That depends. If you believe in infinite time and space, then you have to accept the concept of infinite probability. Given time and space without boundary, it’s reasonable to expect that everything that can happen ultimately will. This would include earth, humans, and other forms of intelligent life.

At this point, we can’t say how big or old the universe is, any more than we can claim whether or not this is the only universe there is.  For all we know, there are millions of other universes that existed before ours, or maybe they even exist in parallel to ours right now. If time has a beginning and an end, or that there are limits to the boundaries of the universe, our existence becomes less likely the product of random chance.

Asking ‘What are the odds?’ alone doesn’t really bother me, although I think it’s a weak argument for the existence of a Creator. But this same argument is the cornerstone of many proponents of teaching intelligent design in our schools, as an alternative to evolution.

There’s one big difference between evolution and intelligent design: the former is science and the latter isn’t. For an idea to be part of the scientific body of thought, you first have to develop a hypothesis and test it using scientifically recognized processes. If your findings support your initial hypothesis, you share your findings with the rest of the scientific community and allow them to try to replicate your results.

Over time, if your hypothesis continues to be supported, it becomes a theory. If evidence arises later that challenges the theory, it’s either changed or discarded. There’s no such thing as a scientific absolute. We only have theories waiting to be disproved.

Some may cry foul, claiming that intelligent design can’t be tested like this. After all, if we can’t prove the existence of God, how can we prove that any of the resultant byproducts are of God’s hands?

That’s why intelligent design isn’t science.

Although I believe personally that God created the universe, I don’t confuse my beliefs with the human-conceived scientific system. There are places in school for discussions such as these, including philosophy and comparative religion classes. I also think each family can impart their beliefs to their children, both at home and at church. But to cloud our understanding of what science is, promoting a religious agenda under the thin veil of scholarship, threatens to contaminate both science and faith.

Some scientists are guilty of making a religion of science. They confuse theory with fact and proclaim the human intellect as the prevailing standard by which all things must solely be measured.

Aristotle, the father of modern science, wisely recognized the limits of science and logic. Thomas Aquinas later claimed that this point where logic breaks down is where faith helps complete the picture.

The difference is that both Aristotle and Aquinas knew not to confuse faith and logic, and both understood the limits of each. The current creation-versus-evolution debate suggests that we haven’t evolved toward a greater truth in the meantime.

(Christian Piatt’s new book, “Lost: A Search for Meaning,” is available for pre-order at most online bookstores now.)

School shootings: We ask why, but need peace

By Christian Piatt

 (Originally printed in the Pueblo Chieftain newspaper)

On Monday, Charles Carl Roberts entered a peaceful one-room Amish schoolhouse with the intention of slaughtering all of its young female occupants, as well as himself. As of Monday afternoon, four children, a young teaching assistant and the attacker all were dead, with five more still in critical condition.

In a call to his wife, and in notes he scribbled out prior to the attack, Roberts evidently was acting on some two-decade-old grudge, seeking revenge for some injustice he suffered some time back. Reports reveal that Roberts may have had a history of sexually abusing children.

Roberts was not Amish, and seems to have no particular connection with the community or the school he attacked. It is thought that his choice of targets was based more upon convenience.

This is the third attack in a school setting in a little more than week, and the whole string of incidents smacks of the Columbine shooting, which occurred in Denver several years ago. My wife, Amy, was a youth minister in Denver at the time, and one of her girls was a friend of the shooters. She spent weeks counseling the girl, her family, and others who were less directly affected, yet impacted nonetheless.

The first question that most people begin with has something to do with why such a senseless, violent event has to take place. How does the human mind end up accommodating such diabolical notions? How divorced from one’s divine spirit must one become to even consider the murder of children? How does someone so young, with so much ahead of them, determine that their time on earth is complete, to be cut short by their own hand?

I’ve found that there are no satisfactory answers in cases such as these, and I’d go so far as to suggest we’re not really seeking answers. What we want is to reclaim a sense of peace. Such things cannot ever be understood, any more than an act of so-called “justice” could satisfy the survivors. No matter what, we’re left with pain, confusion, anger, despair, and in some cases, abject hatred.

So how do we go about rediscovering a sense of peace amid so much suffering and bloodshed?  After all, it’s not a natural part of the human condition. Those who ascribe to the “everything happens for a reason” mindset have a particularly difficult time with such tragedies, as they must reconcile what they believe about God’s plan with such horrendous human-made consequences.

The only way we find peace is to try to transcend the very humanity of the experience. At the essence of life is suffering, and if that is all we lay claim to, it’s all we’re left with. But in acknowledging that we not only don’t understand life sometimes, but that we also cannot control it, we are relieved of the curse of why’s and how’s that get us nowhere closer to the peace we desire.

Ironically, this transcendence, for many, is found in a community of faith. For the Amish, the very bonds that hold them together are the same ones that marry them to their faith. The two are inseparable. Yet even when this peace-loving and peace-living community is encroached upon by the violence of the outside world, you hear no cries for retribution. You don’t even hear complaints of the unfairness of life. What we witness is a community that comes even closer together to support one another, to remember and begin the slow healing process.

No one can make sense of these recent events. We may never completely understand Roberts’ motivations, and even if we did, we would still live with the stain of his murdering binge. However, the prayerful, peaceful response of those who suffered the most – as unnatural as it may seem – makes all the sense in the world.

Church and sex don’t mix, but they should

I was the music minister at a small church in Texas for a few years before coming to Colorado.

My wife, Amy, worked with the youth group, which varied in size from two to six kids at any given time. There was one 16-year-old girl who was mature beyond her years. She was intelligent, had plans for college and was a natural leader.

Then she got pregnant.

After conferring with her mother – a single mom raising both her and her twin sister – she opted to keep the baby, who was eventually adopted by a couple within the church. The child found a loving home, a couple’s dream for a family was fulfilled, and the young woman was able to continue with many of her future plans.

Although this was a best-case scenario given the circumstances, even this situation was emotionally, physically and financially traumatic. Unfortunately, most consequences of teen sex are not as easy.

Per capita, teens in the United States are twice as likely to become pregnant as their peers in Canada and Great Britain, and they are four times as likely as those in France and Sweden. Almost 50 percent of American high-school students report having sex, and one in seven report having four or more partners before they reach graduation. Eighty percent of first sexual encounters involve drugs or alcohol, and 60 percent of sexually transmitted diseases and two in three unwanted pregnancies occur when one or both partners are intoxicated.

These are only the tip of the statistical iceberg, but it’s enough to demonstrate that anyone willing to ignore the reality of teen sex and its consequences are doing so willfully. So who’s to blame for the lack of adequate information our teenage (or younger) children possess about sex?

Most churches are reticent to openly discuss sexuality at all, let alone with their youths. For many, the church’s stance on sex is that all parts under the belt are dirty, not to be used for any pleasurable activities until marriage, and all indiscretions – and even thoughts – should elicit shame. End of lesson.

Many parents depend on schools to teach kids what they need to know, yet they rarely take the time to review the curriculum or qualifications of the person teaching the class. Meanwhile, most schools offer only a superficial biological survey of sexuality at best, with little practical discussion about the emotional, social and hormonal pressures that a newly sexualized teen faces.

Biblically, shame is historically interwoven with sex too. From the chastisement of Adam and Eve to Sodom and Gomorrah and the story of the hemorrhaging woman, there are plenty of examples to draw from to impart indignity upon sex. If we want to assert that not only the act of sex is dirty, but also the parts of our bodies and feelings associated with sexuality, we can use the Bible to back us up.

Meanwhile, our children continue to engage in activities they hardly understand, and which we are hardly prepared to discuss with them until it’s too late.

We, as God’s creatures, are entirely made in God’s image, genitals and all. We are created to be drawn together sexually, to share intimately with one another, and, in most cases, to multiply.

Sexuality, and even the act of sex, is not a dirty thing. It’s the abuse of this power that causes damage for those both directly and indirectly involved.

There is a nonprofit called CLER Ministries that is committed to sexuality training for clergy and laity and the children they serve. It offers weeklong camps for eighth-grade kids, workshops at churches, and it works from the premise that it is a central mission of all of the nation’s churches to engage young people about their sexuality.

Some will disagree that church is an acceptable place to talk openly about sex.

If not in church, where? If not now, when?

Christian Piatt is a nonprofit consultant, freelance writer and music minister at Milagro Christian Church. He can be reached at cpiatt@milagrocc.org .

A look into the shadows: A brief history of hell and Satan
(Part two of two)
By Christian Piatt

(This column originally appeared in the Pueblo Chieftain Newspaper)
Last week, I discussed some of the historical bases for our contemporary understanding of Satan. This week, I’ll consider how hell evolved as part of the Christian faith.

In Old Testament scripture, the resting place for the dead is called Sheol. While some believe this is the same as hell, there are indications to the contrary. In the ancient Jewish tradition, Sheol is a place of rest for both righteous and wicked, with no distinction.

Not everyone is happy about it either.

In the third chapter of Malachi, the prophet recognizes the consternation of faithful Jews who are frustrated that the wicked share the same fate. In Ecclesiastes, the priest Koheleth claims that serving God is vanity. For him, the fact that the righteous are treated the same as the wicked and vice-versa should be a call to eat, drink and be merry.

With respect to any relationship between Satan in the Old Testament and Sheol, there is none.

Approximately 3,500 years ago, the Greek philosophical practice of Hellenism emerged. Hellenism was practiced by the preponderance of Greek culture, valuing logic, knowledge, self-care and moderation. It was influential on Jewish culture, not only in the practices adhered to by the Greeks, but also with regard to their belief in the immortal soul and the afterlife that followed.

Greek culture believed in a place called Hades, which was the resting place for disembodied souls. We see evidence of this in writing as far back as the 8^th century B.C., in Homer’s Odyssey. Hades is described as an Underworld, literally located underground; thus we can see the first indication of why we think of hell as such.

Hades includes multiple levels, including Elysium and Tartarus. Elysium, also called Elysian Fields, can be equated with our modern idea of heaven. One difference – although Greek scholars did not always agree on where different levels of Hades were – is that we think of heaven as located above us, whereas the general consensus is that all levels of Hades were part of a larger Underworld.

Tartarus was the level of Hades where unrighteous souls dwelled. This correlates to our modern understanding of hell, where there is wailing, fire and gnashing of teeth as those who displease God pay an eternal price of their disloyalty. For the Jews of the time, this Hellenistic belief was appealing because it helped justify their faithfulness. It gave reasons beyond earthly consequence for following the laws of the Hebrew scripture.

How heavily did Greek culture influence Jewish tradition?  Consider this: whereas the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the original language of the New Testament is Greek. The influence of Greek culture can hardly be over-emphasized.

The writings of Flavius Josephus, a Jewish priest, had tremendous sway over early founders of the Christian church such as Origen, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Josephus, in turn, was particularly interested in Greek culture and ideology, as well as that of the Essenes, an ascetic Jewish network very focused on end-times theology and Jewish mysticism. Joesphus’ noncannonical texts such as The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities were available to these church fathers, as well as to those who wrote the Gospel texts and other New Testament scripture, which is the source of our contemporary understanding of hell.

Unfortunately this historical perspective doesn’t help make any clearer what the “truth” is about the afterlife. It does, however, tell us something about ourselves, our deepest hopes and fears, and our need for human justice. We may claim to understand God’s ways, truth and justice, but ultimately, it’s all filtered through our dimly illuminated human lens.

God only knows what awaits us.

We have met the devil, and it is us: A Brief History of Hell and Satan
(part one of two)

By Christian Piatt

This column was originally published in the Pueblo Chieftain newspaper

            While Jonathan Edwards wasn’t the first to preach about hell and condemnation, his ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God’ sermon in 1741 crystallizes the beginning of a modern movement in the church. Edwards employed fear of punishment as a primary means for conversion and doctrinal adherence. Meanwhile, his congregants fainted in the aisles and clung to the pews to avoid being dragged down into the abyss.

We can argue day and night about whether or not fear-based theology is effective, biblically accurate and even necessary. But it’s worthwhile to consider where our contemporary ideas about hell and Satan even come from.

This week, we’ll begin with Satan; we’ll save hell for next week.

Some understand the serpent in the Genesis story to be an incarnation of Satan.  However, Satan first emerges in the Old Testament by name in I Chronicles, and again in Job. His primary role is to demonstrate the weakness of humanity in the face of hardship.

In Job, Satan must receive permission from God to prove the fragility of Job’s faith by submitting him to any number of hardships. Satan’s sentiments about people are summed up in Job 2:4, when he claims, “Skin for skin! All that people have they will give to save their lives.”

He shows up again in similar form in II Samuel and Numbers, always as the antagonist. The name Satan actually means ‘adversary.’ While some may interpret this to mean he is God’s adversary, it’s more accurate to define him as humanity’s adversary, always trying to show how unworthy we are of God’s love.

In the Old Testament, Satan has no latitude to operate outside of what God gives him permission to do. Think of him more like a prosecuting attorney, beholden to God’s judiciary authority. He actually works alongside God instead of against God.

Some people also erroneously refer to Satan as Lucifer. The word “Lucifer” means “Light Bearer” in Latin, which was the term used to describe the planet Venus. Some people take Isaiah 14, about Lucifer’s fall, to be a story about Satan being cast out from heaven, as it looks similar to a quote in Luke. However, most biblical scholars and historians contend that this interpretation is taken out of context.

The “Morning Star” actually was a term commonly used to describe the Babylonian Empire. The king of Babylon not only oppressed the Israelites, but he also made a habit of comparing himself to God in the scope of his power. With this understanding, the scripture in Isaiah actually is prophesying the fall of the Babylonian Empire.

As for the use of the names “Lucifer” and “Satan” interchangeably in the Bible, it doesn’t happen. Satan is not described as Lucifer until secular literature such as John Milton’s Paradise Lost adopted the pseudonym. From there, the name seeped its way into our culture until we mistakenly began taking it as scripture.

Satan is much more prevalent – and more powerful – in the New Testament. He possesses people, tempts Christ, and Jesus even claims to see Satan in others, including Peter, his most faithful disciple.

Some maintain that Satan is an embodied figure, while others understand the stories about Satan more metaphorically, representing the perennial weakness of the flesh. There is one thing upon which we can all agree: evil exists.

Theologian Frederick Buechner says that evils exists because, in being allowed to choose whether or not to love God and one another, we also have the choice whether on not to live out our most evil impulses. In this way, Satan lingers in our choices rather than in the shadows, and in the mirror rather than the depths of hell.

Now, that’s scary stuff.

More next week.