To what extent do churches have a responsibility to make the case for the substantive accuracy of their supposed objective moral truth? Instead of just whining about vague cultural factors. If they can’t persuade people on the merits, why should anyone bother to go along with it?

If anything, this is a clear indictment of the various religions’ failure of persuasion. Young adults are open to religious ideas, willing to spend at least some time, looking to be a better person, etc. And yet, postmodernism and social constructivism are winning, are they not? Probably because the religious groups can’t come up with sufficiently compelling arguments of a) their own objective truth and b) refutations of postmodernism.
All this pointing of the finger at academe, at feminism, at individualism, postmodern thinking, but somehow it’s never, ever, the religious side’s fault for failing to make a convincing argument on behalf of its own supposedly superior ideas.

Does he talk about how this group differs from the same age-cohort from previous generations? Is this really something new, or something that has always existed?

What an astonishingly parochial pair of responses by “z”. If you give two seconds of thought to the problems discussed in this post, you’ll understand that there can at least theoretically be a set of truths that a given culture is not prepared to hear. Remember the post I put up last year about how a missionary/linguist finally grasped that an Amazon tribe remained impervious to missionary efforts because a psychological basis for their way of knowing — namely, that nothing could be believed unless it was said by someone who had seen the event personally, or who received the information from someone who had personally witnessed it. How are you going to convince someone in that culture of the truth of events in Roman-ruled Palestine 2000 years ago? How are you going to convince someone in that culture of anything that happened in history prior to two generations ago? It doesn’t mean that nothing true can be said about things that happened outside of living memory; it means that this tribe lives by an epistemological principle that prevents them from apprehending this sort of truth.
The same thing might be happening today. You appear to assume that religion must argue according to the standards of scientific materialism, when it cannot possible meet that standard. Moreover, postmodernist relativism denies that there is any such thing as religious truth. You are blaming religion for failing to do what this sort of epistemology denies it can do in the first place.
Anyway, Charles Taylor wrote a massive book exploring how secularism came to be in the West, and how it was hard *not* to believe in God in 1500, and how it was hard for many in the West today to believe in God. Clearly, social and cultural factors have a lot to do with the openness of a people to religious faith, and to particular religious faiths. You may believe that scientific materialism offers the superior accounting of reality, but try to persuade the students at a Pakistani madrassah of the strength of your claim. Do you suppose their hostility to your viewpoint will be because you have inferior arguments? Or will there be something else at work. Similarly, imagine a mullah from that madrassah trying to convince the faculty senate of Harvard University of the truth of the Islamic accounting of reality. The mullah might lack good arguments, but you cannot deny that the Harvard faculty will be psychologically and culturally indisposed to taking him seriously.
Peter, the only remark Smith makes in the interview re: generations is that it struck him as astonishing how little interest EAs today have in the idea that there is a superior way to live, and/or a reliable roadmap to maturity. He mentions that there’s not a lot of space between his generation (which he doesn’t identify, but I think he’s either a very late Boomer, or an Xer) and that one, but there’s a big gulf in how they conceive the options open to them. In a different interview with him I recently heard, the interviewer (Myers, I think) asked a similar question. Smith said we don’t have a lot of hard data on religious attitudes of young people going back several generations, but anecdotally, in speaking with older academics, they all say there’s been a striking falloff in religious literacy over the space of their teaching careers. As I blogged here the other day, even Camille Paglia has noticed it among her students over time.

“whatever people think is true is true because people make it true by believing it”
This statement is supposed to be self-evidently ridiculous, and I agree it is, regarding religion …
but let’s be honest, the EA’s probably observe that people in different communities believing different and mutually exclusive/contradictory doctrines than other communities can manage to live an apparently decent and happy life. If the LDS church is right and the RC church is wrong (or vice versa or otherwise) wouldn’t you expect to see one of them smash up, like people who jump off a cliff and think they can fly? The EA’s don’t see that, and hold the corresponding MTD.

I don’t see any problem here. Measurable evidence of social decay, crime rates, teenage pregnancy rate, and a slowing down of long term economic growth and technology innovation are strikingly absent. It is true that both crime and teenage pregnancy have ticked up slightly in the last few years, but remain far lower than their peaks around 1990. Here is the reason why I think social decay is a myth:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/labels/previous%20generations%20were%20more%20depraved.php
In the 1990′s we saw the GenX slackers of the early 90′s turn themselves into the tech entrepreneurs of the late 90′s. American kids are highly motivated to accomplishment when they are given the opportunity to do so. We do not see this because of the current recession, which is particularly bad for young people. Trust me, once we pull out of this recession, we will see more ambition in the young people.
I think this is a non-issue.

I just don’t think modern young adult culture is so far removed that it can’t possibly be prepared to hear religious truth claims. Lots of people that age do accept such claims, and it’s only a generation or two in most families. You’re not that old, for example, and you claim to believe all kinds of things. It’s just a throwing-up of hands and abdication of responsibility to blame everything on MTD and nothing on the failure of established religion to make its case.

Well, religious revivals rarely happen in the good times, ya know.
Perhaps the economic shaking of America and the rest of the world will serve God’s purposes in ways we have yet to see or imagine.
A slice of culture at any given point of time bears little power for predicting future outcomes.

How many of us here went through a period like the one Rod describes in our 20s? I more or less did (with some additional external shocks from my brother’s suicide and my father’s death). Rod himself has confessed to some wild oats sowing in his youth. I wonder if what is being described here is more or less normal. Even in the 1920s people were fretting over “the Lost Generation”.

On the one hand, the church is disturbed that young folks no longer believe in objective truth. On the other hand, the church is trying to convince young people that science, the closest thing we have to a hard-core attempt to insist on strict criteria for objective truth, is just another matter of faith.
Y’all are going to have to decide whether you want to shore up or tear down the idea of objective truth. Right now one hand tears it down, while you cry into the other over its demise.

If young people are incapable of accepting the idea of objective truth, why do any of them have conversion experiences or become convinced of the ultimate truth of any religion? Why does the student body of any major university contain such a huge range of religious opinions on the question? It’s clearly not the case that only people raised in utter isolation are capable of accepting the idea of ultimate truth. People make that particular leap all the time, just not as often as you wish, I guess, or in favor of something other than Orthodoxy. Saying it’s impossible due to cultural change is just an easy way of shrugging off responsibility and the obligation to do better, and putting all the blame on convenient scapegoats.

In my experience working with people in their twenties, there are a few advantages that Christianity has (or at least is supposed to have) that churches are not using and presenting to people. These are things which appeal particularly to people in this age range, from what I have seen.
First, Christianity is a way of living that runs counter to the world. For much of the last few decades, church leaders have spent their time trying to influence the world to be more like the church is supposed to be. Instead, we need to acknowledge, celebrate and even emphasize the ways that the Christian life is different from and at odds with the world. Not in an oppositional, combative way, but in a humble, “there is another path” sort of way. In doing so, it is being more theologically faithful and presenting a real alternative to young people who believe that the church is just one place among many to get the same old, same old.
Second, Christianity is about living for and being submitted to something bigger than yourself. The bible says that the great hosts are watching us to see what we’re doing. We must be involved in a greater, more compelling cosmic drama than we commonly realize! I believe that this is one of those needs/desires which is part of our make-up as human beings. However, this age group, more than any other, has been taught over and over again to serve themselves and to submit to their own desires. By the time they get into their mid twenties, many of them are starting to suspect that there is more to life than just living for yourself. Or even for yourself and your group. Rather than being one more place where people can go to get themselves right, church can be where you go to reach beyond what you know. A place to take on an adventure bigger than yourself which has cosmic consequences rather than being an enjoyable, but passing adventure like so many people in this age group seek.
Finally, when a group of people are living counter-culturally, serving something bigger than themselves for an important purpose, a sense of solidarity and community naturally forms. This is something else which is greatly desired by people in this age range, but which most of us are ill-equipped to create in any meaningful way. If the church embraces it’s unique and (today) foreign way of living and viewing life, those who join in can find solidarity and support from others who are sharing the path. Church can become a safe haven in a world that is challenging to the odds ways of Christianity. Those who are older can be resources to the younger on the way. Many people come from families that couldn’t even exist as functioning communities. Imagine how attractive (and in line with Christ’s desires for his followers) real communities of believers can be.

Good post. I see Mars Hill Audio as a sort of highbrow version of MTD, an attempt to rectify modernity with Christianity. Can’t be done, but it’s oft interesting to listen to Myers try. I’m especially amused at his use of his term “Church”.
Rod, What an astonishingly parochial pair of responses by “z”.
I really don’t see this. Z’s argument isn’t parochial, it’s merely a reflection of his culture, that instinctive reflex to accuse someone (anyone!) daring to make a judgmental argument as a hypocrite. That’s not parochial, more silly and pathetic, like a poodle bearing his teeth.
Personally, I find the Lindsey/Jon argument to be the more common reflex to this discussion: you know, that boomer good ‘ol battle cry of hey, back off, the kids are alright. Sometimes I wonder how bad culture would have to get before some tiny twinge of guilt starts to rear up. Between these two responses, though, hypocrite and denial, one can capture the entire field of MTD reflex – first, to deny the messenger, second, to deny the problem.
My slant has some similarity to Z’s. Who cares about culture today? Just create one’s own. That’s what we are doing, and we like the results. In the era we live in, one can literally be whatever one wants it to be; there has never been a better time to create one’s own culture. With modern technology, we can now live independent of the broader culture. The freedoms today are amazing – homeschooling, travel, foods, self-everything…things that even thirty years ago couldn’t be conceived. Heck, we can even create our own central bank by keeping gold at home. In today’s day-and-age, we can literally walk away from MTD and the broader culture, and enjoy life amongst the larger family units. The truth about the good life becomes apparent over time; one can watch the divergence year after year between those who accept that ideas have consequences and those who do not. Modern culture doesn’t age well; the difference is palpable, and really can’t be ignored but by the most obtuse.

I didn’t call anyone a hypocrite. I merely pointed out that the failure of religious leaders and lay people to persuade the younger generation is being conveniently left out of the discussion, and that Rod’s arguments are less than convincing.

Also, it’s not as if these people are seriously committed to postmodernism or other academic theories based on decades of detailed theoretical study. Their grasp of it is just as shallow and fuzzy as their grasp of anything else. So I really don’t see why this is supposed to be some insurmountable obstacle.
Maybe creating some great works of art would help, if you don’t want to make reasoned arguments straight-on? Kind of going at it from a different direction?

The answer is not drilling moral truth into young minds. They need to see good old fashion piety. Piety lived is humility, hospitality, honesty, self-control and generosity. The problem is that this generation has seen the consumerism and happiness seeking life-style of their elders and no amount of sermonizing is going to help that. They haven’t seen anybody make sacrifices for beliefs or values. I guess they really are relative. If nothing is worth dying for then nothing is worth living for either.

Me, I think you point out some very interesting concerns about the way Christianity is taught.
Most churches today try to “update” themselves to the point that they are not visibly different from the world. Their message is packaged like just another media message – for that reason, maybe, it is not taken seriously. Other churches try to make Christianity out to be either a form of political conservatism or liberalism.
Precious few churches present the message of Christ as a different Way entirely. They don’t broadcast the message that Jesus’ teachings turn power, and politics, and materialism completely upside down. That following in his footsteps means striking out for a path that is different from the path of EVERY human culture. Part of the problem here is that not a lot of people are fully living that path. But have we human beings often done that, in history? I’m not so sure that we have. For much of history, Christianity merged with the culture to the point that it became indistinguishable from it. Only in hard times and hard places, or times of great change, does it seem we dust off Christianity enough to see its underlying shape and golden gleam.
I think you are also right about people wanting and needing to belong to something larger than themselves. Part of it is group solidarity, of course, but a bigger part of it is becoming part of a meaningful storyline, a Cosmos even.
I think these missing components are in large part the attractiveness of militant Islam. It offers you a way completely different from the way things are trending around you. A chance to be part of a brotherhood of true believers. The opportunity to join in the fight of a lifetime – to take on a role in a great struggle against the Powers that Be that oppress the weak, against the empty way of life which is enveloping the world, and interestingly, against your own personal corruptness and shortcoming.
That the Gospel contains all of the above, and much more, goes without saying. Or does it? Is anybody saying it?
Thanks again, me.

Re: Personally, I find the Lindsey/Jon argument to be the more common reflex to this discussion: you know, that boomer good ‘ol battle cry of hey, back off, the kids are alright.
I have no idea how old Lindsey is, but I am decidedly not a Boomer: I am Rod’s age.
And one of the advantages of studying history is that you learn certain eternal verities about humankind, and one of them is that handwringing over the young is as old as civilization.
And one of the advantages of being the otherwise ghastly age of 42 is that you can look back on your own youth with a more sober perspective. Sure I was a bit wayward, and a bit lost. But eventually I found what I needed, as much as anyone can in this fractured world. The real question is whether today’s young people will settle down, become responsible members of the community, maybe find religion, love their own children and seek to do right by them, and finally fret and fuss and tut-tut over the younger generation– what ARE they coming to?

Rod Dreher said, “You appear to assume that religion must argue according to the standards of scientific materialism, when it cannot possible meet that standard.”
Why not? If you’re an omni^3 deity who wants people to obey your moral laws and worship you. I would think it would be a simple matter.

Ken Myers is one of my favorite people and I live for getting the email for a new edition of the journal!

okay so academic institutions are teaching this moral relativism etc – I take it Smith teaches at an academic institution right? What does he teach? Does he teach that there is no meaning to life, that there is nothing in our culture worth preserving and passing on? I bet not. If it is the academic institutions are the ones responsible for all these ills – they why does Rod find so many academics who seem to work to preserve culture and meaning?
Parents raise children – not academic institutions. Why would black protestants and Mormons still have a sense of purpose and meaning to life – they go to academic institutions too. Maybe their parents accept their responsibility to teach and shape their kids to see more than what they can buy?
At any rate – it is gonna be a long time before all the emerging adults can consume like their mommmas and pappas did – suspect that will change things.

I stand by my earlier comments.
I went to college in the first half of the 80′s. So, I am old enough to remember the 1970′s. I can tell you that, outside of certain inner city neighborhoods, one does not see the criminality and violence that was so pervasive in the late 70′s and 80′s. My impression as a child in the 70′s, that kids in the 70′s were FAR rowdier and out of control than kids are today. My high school was a violent hell-hole in the early 70′s (I heard many stories from teachers when I was a student there). By the time I graduated in 1981, it was like a lily-white suburban high school. My brother in law’s kids attended the same high school during the early part of this decade. They told me that it was a very safe, quiet school. The violence of the 70′s had receded into history. In most cities in the U.S., it is actually safer to walk around at night than it was 20-30 years ago.
It is the nature of every generation to think that the generation after them is depraved and will not make it. In the early 90′s, it was common to deride the GenX’ers as lazy slackers (Rod, you should know what I am talking about here since you are a GenX yourself). Everyone seemed to think they were no good. That they just hung out, skate boarded, snow boarded and listened to grunge rock. The fact that there was a recession at the time that disproportionately affected youth employment did not seem to register on most peoples’ minds. By the late 90′s, everyone talked about this or that internet or dotcom start-up being founded by the same GenX’ers that were derides as slackers 5-6 years previously. It seems that American youth does just fine when presented with the opportunity to make something of themselves.
I managed a small engineering company during the first half of this decade. We hired engineering students from the local university to work part time as technicians while they went to school or during the summer. We had 8 kids come through our company during the time I ran this place. To their credit, everyone of them was a good hire. Not only were they smart and diligent, they would do whatever work had to be done in the lab without being asked. They showed initiative. Granted, these were engineering students and, as such, may not be representative of the GenY’s in general. Nonetheless, I had (and still have) a favorable impression of youth today.
I think the kids are alright.
Granted, these kids may not subscribe the religious values that many of you in here believe in. However, this is certainly not a civilizational E.L.E. that you guys make it out to be. As far as being productive, responsible citizens, being able to maintain and increase the economic and technological dynamism of our Western civilization, I think they will do just fine.

Rod,
Disappointing thread. All the religion bashers miss the fact that these EAs aren’t exactly turning to science to guide themselves.
In any case, what about the role of parents and adults? I’m within the EA demographic and I’ve struggled to find an adult Christian identity. Parish life (I’m Catholic) is very much a married person’s world. I know the prayers, the liturgical calendar, the commandments, etc., but it is unclear what it adds up to. One of the most discouraging problems has been the unwillingness of adults to act as mentors or simply engage with me in any sort of discussion of religion and what role it might play in our lives. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that the married adult Catholics view being single as another world with little connection to being married. I’ve known enough people in dysfunctional marriages to know that the character you cultivate while single matters a lot (eg, people who think they won’t be porn addicts when they’re married), but they don’t seem to want to recognize these commonalities. In sum, I think the strong focus of religious organizations on families has prevented them from doing the outreach they should be doing to EAs.

Rod Dreher said, “You appear to assume that religion must argue according to the standards of scientific materialism, when it cannot possible meet that standard.”
MH said, “Why not? If you’re an omni^3 deity who wants people to obey your moral laws and worship you. I would think it would be a simple matter.”
Why should we expect religion to argue according to the standards of materialism, when science itself doesn’t adhere to materialism. Logic and reason, for example, are immaterial. You can’t for example, stub your toe on logic. Yet logic remains invariable, unarbitrary, and constant. How does one materialisticly justify logic? The presuppositions that our senses and memory are basically reliable, that there are laws of logic, that there is uniformity in nature, and that people have dignity and freedom are all necessary for rationality and science. Yet these all are contingent upon the biblical God.
I actually agree with Z’s “parochial” arguments. I think the church HAS failed to provide sufficient answers and arguments to defend itself. Furthermore, I think the church has compromised far too much of itself. You know what youths are looking for? They are looking for something genuine and authentic. Today, they go into a “mega church” stripped nearly completely bare of all religious symbols so as to be more “seeker friendly” and find there a compromised moral relativism. Pick and choose what you want to believe. The real problem is these young people are actually being more consistent than the leaders of these churches who have become the ultimate relativists in an attempt to insure more butts in the pews when the offering plate goes by. To most church leaders, truth, ultimate truth, or absolute truth is irrelevant to putting on a good show. After all, they’ve got budgets to meet.
Furthermore, the very foundation of Christianity – the Bible – has had it’s authority completely compromised by the Church. Namely, in the area of Creation vs Evolution. Basically, the church has, for the most part, given up on arguing Creation in lieu of evolution and materialism. Well if the Bible cannot be trusted in the very first verse, then where can it be trusted? If the Church can say that science is a judge on the Bible and determines what is and isn’t true in the Bible – replacing creation with evolution – then what’s to stop the church from denying the deity or resurrection of Jesus Christ? No one has ever observed a virgin birth or resurrection – so why not throw out these beliefs because science has judged them untenable?
Jhn 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?

This Christianity Today interview of David Bazan, a notable member of the generation under discussion, has been making the rounds on another blog on BeliefNet-
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/music/interviews/2010/davidbazan-jan10-1.html

This whole thing reminds me of an ancient ditty that went:
My grandpa in his house of logs said, “things are going to the dogs.”
And his granpa in the Flemish bogs said, “things are going to the dogs.”
And hid grandpa in his old skin togs said, “things are going to the dogs.”
There is one thing I have to state. Those dogs have had a good long wait.
So to Grandpa Rod and the poor folks he quotes, the kids are all right. They just have enough brains not to buy snake oil when they see it.

Re: Furthermore, the very foundation of Christianity – the Bible – has had it’s authority completely compromised by the Church.
The Bible may well be the foundation of evanegelical Protestantism, but the older churches do not treat it so. The Orthodox view is that Scripture is the product of the Church, not its foundation. Moreoever there is a long, long history of rejecting narrow literalism, especially on matters of scienctific fact, in favor or a deeper symbolic interpretation.
Re: Well if the Bible cannot be trusted in the very first verse, then where can it be trusted?
“In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.” Evolution does not refute that claim and I know of no Christian church which rejects it.

Well, let’s see…
1. Lindsey, the Smith study does not attempt to measure “social decay” among young people, but rather the nature of their beliefs about religion and morality as it relates to religious conviction. Nowhere does he say, “These kids are bad news.” In fact, he said one thing that’s characteristic of that generation is that they are strongly committed to Not Messing Up, though he says it seems to come from a utilitarian approach to morality (i.e., because Messing Up could keep you from getting what you want out of life, which is to make it into a great college, so you can get a great job, and have the consumerist life of your dreams). That’s better than the alternative, I guess, but still troubling.
2. Jon: How many of us here went through a period like the one Rod describes in our 20s?
Jon, most everybody spends their 20s these days searching for solid ground; that’s why sociologist call this period “emerging adulthood.” This isn’t a finding new to Smith. What’s interesting and new about Smith’s work is his finding that that generation today, unlike previous generations, believes it has no markers at all for how to navigate this period. Moreover, it believes (in general) that there is no truth, religious or otherwise, to be discovered, only lives to be made, and remade, as it suits their feelings at the moment. If you listen to the interview, Smith comes off feeling sorry for this generation for having been forced to deal with life so ill-prepared by the older generations. Put another way, older generations all had to go through the wildnerness of learning what it means to be an adult; Smith’s point here is that older generations now have condemned the EA generation today to do so without a map or weapons for their own protection.
3. Pat: On the one hand, the church is disturbed that young folks no longer believe in objective truth. On the other hand, the church is trying to convince young people that science, the closest thing we have to a hard-core attempt to insist on strict criteria for objective truth, is just another matter of faith.
Huh? How wide is your experience with “the Church”? Maybe some fringe fundamentalist churches teach that sort of thing, but no church in my experience does. You can’t take outliers as standing for the whole.
4. me: First, Christianity is a way of living that runs counter to the world. For much of the last few decades, church leaders have spent their time trying to influence the world to be more like the church is supposed to be. Instead, we need to acknowledge, celebrate and even emphasize the ways that the Christian life is different from and at odds with the world. Not in an oppositional, combative way, but in a humble, “there is another path” sort of way. In doing so, it is being more theologically faithful and presenting a real alternative to young people who believe that the church is just one place among many to get the same old, same old.
Smith does say that the idea that churches need to fall all over themselves to be “relevant” and to get warm bodies in the door is a failed strategy. Yes, they have to be aware of the way those they wish to reach are conditioned by this culture to hear their message. But Smith says his findings show that having warm bodies in the pews tells you little about the integrity of the religion itself, and whether or not it is actually believed by those people. As Smith says, most of the EAs going to church today see it as little more than a nice place to go to be with people and to get some therapeutic advice for dealing with your problems. That’s not nothing, but it’s not what church is supposed to be primarily about.
5. Cecelia: okay so academic institutions are teaching this moral relativism etc – I take it Smith teaches at an academic institution right? What does he teach? Does he teach that there is no meaning to life, that there is nothing in our culture worth preserving and passing on? I bet not. If it is the academic institutions are the ones responsible for all these ills – they why does Rod find so many academics who seem to work to preserve culture and meaning?
This response puzzles me, Cecelia. Smith speaks in generalities; it’s not like he’s condemning every academic in the world. He’s talking about how nihilistic trends in higher thought have, over time, trickled down from the academy to the wider culture. And judging from the interview, he doesn’t blame universities solely for this state of affairs; he’s just doing what a social scientist is supposed to do, and trying to find explanations that account for his data. He also speaks in the interview of the dynamic structure of our economy working against shaping the character of young people’s minds for commitment. According to your logic, he deserves to be rebuked as a Marxist for having offered that informed speculative opinion.
6. Gup20, you are blaming all of this on the failure of churches to teach Creationism? Really? That sounds to me like riding a hobbyhorse over a cliff. Anyway, readers, can we please not turn this into a Creationism vs. Evolution thread?
7. Boz: In any case, what about the role of parents and adults? I’m within the EA demographic and I’ve struggled to find an adult Christian identity. Parish life (I’m Catholic) is very much a married person’s world. I know the prayers, the liturgical calendar, the commandments, etc., but it is unclear what it adds up to. One of the most discouraging problems has been the unwillingness of adults to act as mentors or simply engage with me in any sort of discussion of religion and what role it might play in our lives. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that the married adult Catholics view being single as another world with little connection to being married. I’ve known enough people in dysfunctional marriages to know that the character you cultivate while single matters a lot (eg, people who think they won’t be porn addicts when they’re married), but they don’t seem to want to recognize these commonalities. In sum, I think the strong focus of religious organizations on families has prevented them from doing the outreach they should be doing to EAs.
What a sad but true point, Boz. If you go to that Christianity Today interview with Smith, you’ll find him talking about how churches fail young adults in precisely that way: by being so committed to families that they leave twentysomethings to drift. I saw that over and over again when I was in my twenties. I was invisible to the people in my parishes, and nobody seemed to care one bit what I believed, or where I was in my spiritual life. Now that I’m on the other side of the generational gap, I see that I’m so focused on family life, and the challenges of raising children, and raising children to hold the faith, that the twentysomethings in my parish(es) are largely invisible to me. Thanks for reminding me that I’ve got to do better, and that we’ve got to do better. As you indicate, the twentysomethings we ignore or marginalize today will be the pillars of the church tomorrow — if they stick around, that is.

I appreciate the link to the subscription. This audio journal looks very interesting and informative.

“How wide is your experience with “the Church”? Maybe some fringe fundamentalist churches teach that sort of thing, but no church in my experience does.”
My experience of the church is pretty wide, but I was referring to the recent posts on this blog. Sorry I did not make that clearer.

Gup20 said, “Why should we expect religion to argue according to the standards of materialism, when science itself doesn’t adhere to materialism. Logic and reason, for example, are immaterial. You can’t for example, stub your toe on logic. Yet logic remains invariable, unarbitrary, and constant. How does one materialisticly justify logic? The presuppositions that our senses and memory are basically reliable, that there are laws of logic, that there is uniformity in nature, and that people have dignity and freedom are all necessary for rationality and science. Yet these all are contingent upon the biblical God.”
I don’t know the basis of math and logic, but I know that computers are physical machines capable of performing these tasks. So it is possible they are material phenomena. Also as people have pointed out before, the Babylonians and Greeks had science and mathematics, but they weren’t Christian or Jewish. So even if I grant you that a uniform predictable universe requires a deity, we don’t know which deity or deities are required.
Also science is a human created enterprise which only seeks pragmatic knowledge and doesn’t make ultimate claims. However religion does make ultimate claims so it should hold itself to higher standards. Basically if a religion is from God, I would expect God to hold itself to higher than human standards. Particularly because there are so many religions and someone has to be wrong.
So human claims about God’s existence are suspect, but God could directly make its case unmediated by any other being. Moreover this direct revelation could be provided in a manner which is available to all beings at all times. You might think such a thing impossible, but I will preempt you and state that it would be trivially easy for an omni^3 being. Basically God would need to make nature behavior unnaturally in a subtle manner which conveyed information. One way would be to tweak gravity subtly and nearly imperceptibly changing it strength. On the bulk scale of matter such changes wouldn’t be obvious, but using a laser interferometer its changing strength would be apparent. Once we became aware of the pattern a message could be encoded within it.
Boz said, “All the religion bashers miss the fact that these EAs aren’t exactly turning to science to guide themselves.”
Boz, I don’t consider myself a religion basher, but I am highly skeptical about it. As far a EA’s not turning to science to guide themselves. This is a good thing! Science is not a philosophy, or a guide to life, nor should it aspire to be either. It provides pragmatic information about the workings of the material world and that’s it.

JON said, “The Bible may well be the foundation of evanegelical Protestantism, but the older churches do not treat it so. The Orthodox view is that Scripture is the product of the Church, not its foundation. Moreoever there is a long, long history of rejecting narrow literalism, especially on matters of scienctific fact, in favor or a deeper symbolic interpretation.
Jesus said “Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. ”
Rightly understood, Christianity is a result of or branch of Judaism.
Furthermore:
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The Biblical view of scripture is not that it came from the “holy church”, but rather proceeded forth from God himself. It is the very word of God.
The apostle Paul frequently calls Abraham the first Christian (Gal 3-4, Rom 4 he is referred to as the father of those who believe in Jesus Christ). Jesus himself confirms this:
Jhn 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.
Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
ROD DREHER said, “6. Gup20, you are blaming all of this on the failure of churches to teach Creationism? Really? That sounds to me like riding a hobbyhorse over a cliff. Anyway, readers, can we please not turn this into a Creationism vs. Evolution thread?”
No, actually I am blaming all of this on the failure of churches to uphold the authority of scripture. Because nearly every Christian doctrine is founded in Genesis, it is the most widely attacked book in the Bible. Creation is simply one example of where the church has compromised on the authority of scripture.
Martin Luther realized the church needed a reformation because it had gotten away from the authority of God’s word. In his day, they were saying God created everything in one day rather than six days or billions of years. Martin Luther once said, “When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are.”
The EA of today don’t buy the relativistic bill of goods that religious leaders are selling because the authority of God’s word has been destroyed. They are looking for something truly authentic, and they don’t find it in today’s churches or church leaders who have dismissed the authority of God’s word. They rightly ask – why should I believe it if you don’t even believe it yourself?
Rod, I strongly recommend you check out http://www.answersingenesis.org. Here you will find PhD scientists doing research, and answering the questions of our day. This organization stands firmly on the absolute authority of God’s word. Then ask yourself – why does an organization like this have authentic answers while the church does not. For example, you wrote about information theory the other day – did you know about Dr. Werner Gitt who has created a series of theorems defining information? http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp

I don’t know the basis of math and logic, but I know that computers are physical machines capable of performing these tasks.
No, computers are stupid. They manipulate symbols in exactly the way we tell them to, and don’t know or care whether this manipulation follows the rules of logic. They don’t deal in math or logic; they only deal in turning one set of symbols into another in the way they are instructed to do.
Anyone who’s ever programmed one of the darned things knows this.
For a more logical argument refuting your claim, check out The Last Superstition by Edward Feser. I don’t have a copy handy, so I can’t be sure about this, but I think it’s around Chapter 4.

Dan Berger, it doesn’t matter if they are stupid, only that they are physical machines which can manipulate the symbols of logic and math. They don’t have to care about the implications of these symbols because their needs are met for them.
But life forms do care because they use information processing to meet their material needs. So their understanding of these concepts would be grounded in their biological utility which is a material phenomena.

MH, the symbols don’t mean anything to the computer. I don’t have time to develop the whole argument, even if I were philosopher enough to do so; I recommend Feser to you.
So their understanding of these concepts would be grounded in their biological utility which is a material phenomena.
“Understanding” is not a material phenomenon. From a materialist point of view, there is no such thing as “understanding;” it is an illusion — more than that, an epiphenomenon of our brain chemistry, just like “truth.”
At which point the materialist point of view becomes self-refuting, like logical positivism.

Dan Berger said, “No, computers are stupid. They manipulate symbols in exactly the way we tell them to, and don’t know or care whether this manipulation follows the rules of logic. They don’t deal in math or logic; they only deal in turning one set of symbols into another in the way they are instructed to do.
Very well said. I agree. A computer can only perform logic because it was programmed to do so by a greater intelligence.
Dr. Werner Gitt (information theory) says that what is observed by science is that information only comes from a greater amount of information (IE a program comes from a programmer), and information does not spontaneously arise in matter.
MH said, “So their understanding of these concepts would be grounded in their biological utility which is a material phenomena.
Even biological systems rely on information. DNA meets all the requirements of an information system. Information can only come from greater information (for example, biologically all creatures inherit their DNA from their parents) and has never been observed to arise from matter. Based on information theory, and what is observed scientifically as it pertains to information, if you continue backward – information coming from a greater amount of information which came from a greater amount of information, which ultimately is intelligent you inevitably arrive at a source that has infinite information. That idea that this source could be an omniscient God is logical.

From the perspective of a parent, I wonder if some are missing the obvious:
Order a child, and prepare for rebellion.
Teach a child, and prepare for unending questions.
I’m with z on this one, but I approach it from a somewhat more general angle. Religion — being the individual experience of faith in the context of a group — is composed of two things: Learned beliefs, and the experience of belief. At some point, parents are challenged with the necessity of either exercising ever-increasing control over ever-increasingly rebellious children, or calling it done and letting them experience life on their own terms. The former is a fair description of parenting from the parents’ POV, and how children see parents as tyrants. The latter is one of the most difficult tasks of parenting, and the light shining at the end of the tunnel for children.
So, believers in dogma and doctrine, at what point do you acknowledge the free will of your children? I ask that sincerely, and without rancor. I believe it to be the core question and problem you face in this topic.

Dan Berger and Gup20, I’ve read the philosophical objections to materialism. But for each claim there are counter claims. For example if there is an immaterial world how does it interact with the material one? In the material world all interactions require inputs of energy and yet we don’t see inputs of energy coming from outside the system.
This argument hasn’t been settled in over 2000 years and probably won’t ever be settled. So your claim that understanding is an immaterial phenomenon is not something you have demonstrated. You’ve asserted it and expect me to accept it unchallenged.
Which brings me back on topic. The reason people are without a map is because we live in an age where there is a general expectation for claims of knowledge to have evidence behind them. So when a religion makes a claim of truth that it admits it can’t demonstrate, it seems like special pleading. Especially because their are conflicting claims, and it seems plausible a way could be found to demonstrate the truth of these claims as a I said above.
So like Pirahã Rod mentioned earlier the religious “none’s” in the western world may be unable to accept Christianity because of their epistemology.

In fact, he said one thing that’s characteristic of that generation is that they are strongly committed to Not Messing Up, though he says it seems to come from a utilitarian approach to morality…
Since I’m not into any religion at all, this does not bother me at all. In fact, I think its wonderful. I think most people these days believe what I would call a contractual concept of morality. Since I have believed this since I was in high school, I am quite happy with this development.

I’ve read the philosophical objections to materialism. But for each claim there are counter claims. For example if there is an immaterial world how does it interact with the material one? In the material world all interactions require inputs of energy and yet we don’t see inputs of energy coming from outside the system.
From an Aristotelian point of view this is rooted in Descartes’ great mistake, dualism. On an Aristotelian understanding, there is no “immaterial world” to contrast with a “material world.” It’s a single whole. It’s just that materialism, as generally understood, cuts itself off from part of that whole.
Again, check out Feser. I won’t try to argue the point because I’m not a good philosopher; I flatter myself that I can recognize good arguments but I can’t generate them well myself, just as I can recognize excellent composition or architecture even though I can’t do it myself.

MH said, “For example if there is an immaterial world how does it interact with the material one? In the material world all interactions require inputs of energy and yet we don’t see inputs of energy coming from outside the system.”
Certainly a smart person like you can see how illogical (tested false in the immaterial realm) it is to try to quantify the immaterial realm via a materialistic measurement?
MH said, “Which brings me back on topic. The reason people are without a map is because we live in an age where there is a general expectation for claims of knowledge to have evidence behind them. So when a religion makes a claim of truth that it admits it can’t demonstrate, it seems like special pleading. Especially because their are conflicting claims, and it seems plausible a way could be found to demonstrate the truth of these claims as a I said above.”
I couldn’t agree more. You are right on here.
The reason EA are unlikely to follow Christianity is because proponents of Christianity are so morally relativistic that they are often unwilling or unable to give a reason for their hope without contradicting themselves (i.e. – I believe in Jesus because of what the Bible says, but I don’t believe in Biblical Creation despite what the Bible says).
The apostle Paul said:
1Cr 2:4 And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Faith was never intended to be “blind faith”. Paul went around healing people, and doing many supernatural deeds – demonstrating God’s power.
The apostle Peter said:
1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Gup20, maybe its not because of the proponents, but because no one is going around healing people and raising the dead anymore.
Dan Berger, you and I can both understand arguments but not generate them because p is not equal to np (although I can’t prove that). But in plain language just being able to appreciate a symphony doesn’t make you Mozart.

MH said, “So human claims about God’s existence are suspect, but God could directly make its case unmediated by any other being. Moreover this direct revelation could be provided in a manner which is available to all beings at all times.
Well … lets say he changed nature itself, introducing death (when it didn’t exist previously) as a consequence for sin to the universe. Would this change be significant enough?
How about if he flooded and destroyed the entire earth, but saved anyone who would listen – including all the animals – on an Arc. Would this be subtle enough to get everyone’s attention?
Regardless of how God would choose to reveal himself to his creation, there would be those who would reject or deny him.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Over on the information thread, MH posted this:
Within the domain of computers there’s no such thing as software, only different states of hardware. We call it software for our convenience, but it can be fully explained by physical processes within computers.
The proof is that it’s possible to build computers out of tinker toys, relays, gears, or valves. While they are bigger and slower than their electronic counterparts it’s possible to design them with the same architecture and run the same programs on either. However, when you see and hear a relay computer running a program the physical nature of software is undeniable.
This is a failure to see all of reality rather than a reduction of “software” to “hardware.” The fact that you can design computers to run the same algorithms that are made from tinkertoys, or levers and gears (Babbage), or microchips, or DNA, says just the opposite of what you say: the software is the same in each instance, only the hardware used to instantiate it changes.
The software is a form that is instantiated by particular hardware and particular hardware states. It is just as real as triangularity or table-ness, which can be instantiated by tinkertoys and DNA as well.
Aristotle and Plato weren’t such dummies after all, I guess.

This thread is tangenting into heuristics and the use of algorithms. I leave with this (dated) axiom of artificial intelligence:
24% of all statistics are meaningless.

FRANKLIN, that is almost as good as:
“There are no absolutes”.

Gup20, you’re using the bible as evidence for its claim that it is true. That’s a circular argument and you won’t convince a skeptic doing that. For people who aren’t young Earth creationists death predates human existence because there is evidence for that claim. Likewise the biblical flood is likely a myth because there is no evidence that it happened.
Also those events occurred at a specific point in time and unfairly favored the people who witnessed them. I’m talking about continuous evidence for God’s existence.
Dan Berger, this is why we’re having a disagreement. It says to me that table-ness is a by product of specific arrangements of matter. Until table-ness can exist independent of matter I will consider it an epiphenomena of matter.

Dan Berger, this is why we’re having a disagreement. It says to me that table-ness is a by product of specific arrangements of matter. Until table-ness can exist independent of matter I will consider it an epiphenomena of matter.
Table-ness does exist independent of matter. It’s not a matter of observation; it’s a matter of logical proof, like proving that the angles of three-sided plane figures sum to 180°.
Don’t take my word for it. Go read a real philosopher who is an Aristotelian or Thomist. I have recommended Feser; if you prefer a non-Christian Aristotelian, try Adler’s Aristotle for Everyone.
(Warning: Adler, after admitting that the only reason he didn’t turn Christian was because he didn’t care to have the demands on his time that being a serious Christian would entail… turned Christian. But even Flew — who will only turn Christian on his deathbed and in secret, or when Hell freezes, whichever comes first — admitted that it was Aristotelian arguments that turned his atheism into deism.)

Oh, and by the way, I am signing off of this thread. I’ve had a good time at Rod’s place today — thanks, Rod! — but I have to get some work done.

Shorter Gup20: the solution for the failures of fundamentalism is more fervent fundamentalism.

MH said, “Gup20, you’re using the bible as evidence for its claim that it is true. That’s a circular argument and you won’t convince a skeptic doing that. For people who aren’t young Earth creationists death predates human existence because there is evidence for that claim.
The evidence for a young earth interpretation is often stronger and makes more sense than an old earth interpretation. For example, everywhere on earth you find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water. Additionally every culture on earth has some kind of “flood myth” or legend. If you read, for example, some of the oldest Chinese writings, you may be confused because it sounds exactly like Genesis. The ancient Chinese word for “boat” for example is a combination of 3 Chinese characters: vessel, eight, & people (the exact number of people on Noah’s arc).
Consider that old and young earthers have all the same evidence. However they come to vastly different conclusions. This is because they have very different starting assumptions. Just because I am straightforward with my assumptions doesn’t mean my logic is circular. The old earther also has the same set of facts, but interprets them according to his or her assumptions and worldview. Facts and evidence tell us nothing without being interpreted. Interpretations of evidence are built upon the worldview (and yes assumptions) of the interpreter. I would say that if you told me the 1 evidence that absolutely upholds an old earth in your worldview, I could tell you how that same piece of evidence upholds biblical creation, and makes more sense than the old earth interpretation.
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
MH, I believe the Bible is that revelatory knowledge you are talking about. The skeptic simply has to realize that it isn’t a matter of my evidence vs their evidence. All the evidence is the same. The argument is in fact an immaterial argument about how to interpret that evidence.
The Christian says “look at my metaphysical data (the Bible) to interpret the evidence. The Secularist says “no, look at my metaphysical data (evolution, materialism) to interpret the data. Both are unobserved, and unrepeatable, so the debate never ends. Both sides already take their side on faith, so the evidence isn’t the real question.

Jillian said, “Shorter Gup20: the solution for the failures of fundamentalism is more fervent fundamentalism.”
Fundamentalism is only a “bad thing” if that which is being fundamentally adhered to is wrong.
In the case of Christianity, fundamentally adhering to scripture would be a good thing, but I haven’t seen a pure version of that since Christ and his apostles. Just as the days of Martin Luther, the church needs a new reformation to get back to what was originally written in scripture – back to the authority of scripture.
For example, the church of England in the middle ages. It took Creation seriously, but ignored the fundamentals of Church government being a “power under” system (as described in the Bible) rather than a “power over” system. The church decided they could re-interpret scripture, and they thought they could change it to fit their own thirst for power and control. The phrase “kingdom of God” appears 69 times in the New Testament and nearly always describes how radically different God’s way is to conventional earthly kingdoms. For example,
Luk 13:29 And they shall come from the east, and [from] the west, and from the north, and [from] the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.
Mar 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
In my experience, most people called fundamentalists are woefully lacking in the fundamentals. They are better called “traditionalists”, as they conform to a particular dogma or tradition which is often… well… fundamentally flawed.
To correct your analogy – the solution to the failures of traditionalist dogma is a return to the fundamental principles of scripture.

Gup, Scripture cannot interpret itself. Anyway, who do you think canonized the Scripture? By what authority? See?
Anyway, I desperately wish this thread would get back to its original point, and get off this tangent. But I know I’m doomed to be disappointed.

I am leery of all and any vast generalities involving generations. The people in a generation share nothing except the timing of their birth. While I have moved on behind the 20-something age group, the people I do know in it span a vast range of behaviors, attitudes, beliefs and so on. And when they report their elders did not prepare them for life, well, I take that with a grain of salt. It’s pretty much true that most people at that age think their parents are helpless fuddy-duddies, woefully out of date, with no idea what life today is really like. If they are still claiming this in another 25 years, I may accept it, but most likely they will be saying “My Dad (Mom) really was smarter than I thought he was.”

Gup: The Church is God’s interface with the world. When I say that the Bible is the product of the Church I mean that the Church (including its ancient incarnation as Israel) was the means by which God delivered it to us.
As for Martin Luther, he also noted that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and therefore Copernicus could not be right. Are we therefore bound to Ptolemaic astronomy?

OK I will try to stay on topic. In re-reading the article above this text in particular struck me:
“economy that’s enormously dynamic, in which to stay above water, you have to be ready to move where the jobs are (or, from an employer’s point of view, ready to be disloyal to your employees, or watch your business collapse from the competition). Smith says this economic arrangement produces adults who view commitment and rootedness with suspicion — this, in part as a matter of economic survival. It also works powerfully against religious commitment”
I’ve been in the working world since ’87 and was established by the time the 90 recession hit. Being a few years ahead meant I skipped the slacker bullet which got some of my younger peers. But I had to move twice in four years to keep my job prospects strong. When you move you cut ties, become more autonomous and see rootedness as a luxury of a bygone era.
Now Rod had to do the same thing and he’s a proponent of the crunchy mindset. So recessions change everything and I wouldn’t judge people who adapt because the need to eat.

Rod Dreher said, “Gup, Scripture cannot interpret itself. Anyway, who do you think canonized the Scripture? By what authority? See?
Anyway, I desperately wish this thread would get back to its original point, and get off this tangent. But I know I’m doomed to be disappointed.
Rob, I would disagree. I would say you should always interpret scripture with scripture whenever possible. The reason being scripture is inspired Word of God, while men’s interpretations are fallible.
Also, I think we are in fact on topic. Moral relativism is by far the most obvious cause for the attitudes demonstrated by EA’s, and a loss of Biblical authority is the most obvious cause of moral relativism.
If we simplified maybe the point would seem clearer – lets say for the sake of argument that science “proved” 6 of the 10 commandments useless. What you would see is people that believe that science has greater authority than the Bible would only “believe” in 4 of the 10 commandments. At that point, the Bible is more wrong than right. The bible ceases to be absolutely right… and starts to be relatively right. The “4 command’ers” essentially become “selective adherents”. Is their moral relativism or loose adherence any big mystery?
However, people who believed in the absolute authority of scripture – as though what were written there was the very words of God himself – would hold firmly to all 10 commandments, and would dedicate their being to such.
So my question – what in this world causes the most disbelief in the Bible? What in this world is the most prevalently used argument against belief in scripture? What possible reasons do people have for not believing in the Word of God? The answers to these questions are your source of moral relativism, and therefore the reason young adults are lost without a map.

I leave it to the young people to decide if they’re lost or not. Remember, though, “not all those who wander are lost.” ; )
If you want to return to the original topic, I think you could not do better than to consider the words of AnotherBeliever:
Precious few churches present the message of Christ as a different Way entirely. They don’t broadcast the message that Jesus’ teachings turn power, and politics, and materialism completely upside down. That following in his footsteps means striking out for a path that is different from the path of EVERY human culture.
A church that did this might be worth investigating. I don’t expect to see one any time soon.

Gup20 said, “What possible reasons do people have for not believing in the Word of God?”
I think we covered that question above. I think the EA’s don’t believe it is the word of God. You think it is because Christians aren’t pure enough in their beliefs which leads the EA’s to my faulty conclusion. Based on his writings I’d guess Rod would say it’s because the EA’s don’t want to be bound by the rules of tradition and their moral authority. That coupled with our affluence as a culture leaves them without a road map for becoming an adult and they extend their adolescence.

Re: you have to be ready to move where the jobs are (or, from an employer’s point of view, ready to be disloyal to your employees, or watch your business collapse from the competition).
Is the latter really true? Case in counterpoint: Southwest Airlines, which has never had a layoff. And the airline is in fact thriving while is competitors are on a first-name basis with every bankruptcy judge in the nation.

Jon, one way to think about it is that Southwest is taking market share from the other airlines and causing their problems. So if another more nimble or ruthless competitor emerges Southwest could hit the skids too.
This is the celebrated creative destruction of capitalism in action. If your area has a high concentration of companies hitting the skids at the same time you’ll need to find a way to deal with it. Ask New Englanders in the early 90′s when the mini-computer industry went bust.

Oh, good God.
Gup20,
I’m an Anglo-Catholic (that’s to say, a very high church Episcopalian) by conversion. Very traditionalist in some ways, pretty liberal on other topics. Though I’m usually pretty happy with my church, I sometimes have difficulties with it, and occasionally have considered converting to a church that sees apostolic church tradition as (in some sense) infallible (i.e. the Catholics or the Orthodox). While I haven’t converted to one of those churches, and don’t intend to, there are certainly times when I’m drawn to the idea. I’ve _never_ been _remotely_ drawn to the idea of one of the Sola Scriptura, Biblical-literalist evangelical denominations. Sola Scriptura is truly, a very silly hermeneutic. Relying on the teaching of the Church, as opposed to ‘Scripture alone’, makes a hell of a lot more sense (though I don’t personally view either scripture or the church as infallible).
Sola Scriptura is demolished by one very simple question: if the only authority is the bible, then by what authority did the various church fathers and councils select the books that went into the bible?
It founders on another observation, too: that sola scriptura literalism leads you into absurdities like believing the world was created in six days, doubting the fact of biological evolution, and holding that the world is six thousand years old (or whatever the creationist crowd is claiming these days). If a literal interpretation of Genesis (as opposed to a mythical, typological interpretation) leads you into such absurdities, that’s probably a sign that Genesis is not to be seen as literal truth, or as history in the same sense that the Gospel of Luke is history.

Re: Jon, one way to think about it is that Southwest is taking market share from the other airlines and causing their problems.
True, but my point is that Southwest is doing so without screwing its employees. In other words, outside of truly extreme circumstances the current practice of laying off workers everytime there’s a slight (or even not so slight) drop in business is neither necessary nor useful and may even be harmful to a firm’s long term fortunes.

With this thread about to drop off the main page, I don’t know if any attempt to prove Rod’s expectation wrong will be worthwhile, but my first post in this thread could be a starting point. Further commentary in italics.
From the perspective of a parent, I wonder if some are missing the obvious:
Order a child, and prepare for rebellion.
Teach a child, and prepare for unending questions.
We too often talk about our children as problems without focusing on our ownership of at least half the problem… seeing as how parents (at least should) look to themselves for the solution.
I’m with z on this one, but I approach it from a somewhat more general angle. Religion — being the individual experience of faith in the context of a group — is composed of two things: Learned beliefs, and the experience of belief. At some point, parents are challenged with the necessity of either exercising ever-increasing control over ever-increasingly rebellious children, or calling it done and letting them experience life on their own terms. The former is a fair description of parenting from the parents’ POV, and how children see parents as tyrants. The latter is one of the most difficult tasks of parenting, and the light shining at the end of the tunnel for children.
Again, I emphasize a balanced approach; or, at least an acknowledgment that we (adults, parents) are not going to be interested in the perspective of the children with whom we are concerned in this context.
So, believers in dogma and doctrine, at what point do you acknowledge the free will of your children? I ask that sincerely, and without rancor. I believe it to be the core question and problem you face in this topic.

MH said, “I think we covered that question above. I think the EA’s don’t believe it is the word of God. You think it is because Christians aren’t pure enough in their beliefs which leads the EA’s to my faulty conclusion.[/b>
Actually, I quite agree with “they don’t believe it is the word of God”. I’m not sure what you mean by “aren’t pure enough”. As I’ve said, the problem is that the EA’s no longer believe in the authority of scripture.
HECTOR said, I’ve _never_ been _remotely_ drawn to the idea of one of the Sola Scriptura…. sola scriptura literalism leads you into absurdities like believing the world was created in six days, doubting the fact of biological evolution, and holding that the world is six thousand years old (or whatever the creationist crowd is claiming these days)
I couldn’t have given a more perfect example of how denying the authority of scripture leads to moral relativism – or by what path it typically takes.
And why, Hector, is believing the world was created in six days or that the earth is six thousand years old an absurdity? You say because of “evolution”? So a faith system (which is what evolution is) that was designed from it’s inception to explain the world by completely materialistic means by intentionally excluding anything supernatural has now become a more authoritative judge on the supernatural than the Bible? Never mind the fact that evolution is scientifically impossible, and is actually the opposite of what real science observes today, is based on “missing links”, was unobserved, and is not repeatable (read as “evolution isn’t scientific”).
Hector, allow me to point out the scientific absurdity of a virgin birth, or the scientific absurdity of someone who’s been dead for 3 days coming back to life, or the scientific absurdity that someone who was blind from birth being healed in an instant. Either the Bible is what it claims to be – the Word of God – or it is not. If it is not, then we should certainly strip from it anything and everything that is “absurd”, such as resurrection, virgin birth, healing, miracles, etc. If it is, however, what it claims to be then it is the greatest and highest authority on earth.
Hector said, “Sola Scriptura is demolished by one very simple question: if the only authority is the bible, then by what authority did the various church fathers and councils select the books that went into the bible?
One cannot sensibly argue that God inspired certain books of the Bible and then allowed us to mix in books with it that were not inspired. It was either all inspired at its origination, or none of it at all.
I encourage you to check out the following links:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html

Franklin Evans said, “So, believers in dogma and doctrine, at what point do you acknowledge the free will of your children? I ask that sincerely, and without rancor. I believe it to be the core question and problem you face in this topic.”
Franklin, I believe God gave us a free will and a choice:
Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Gup20,
I just want to explicitly acknowledge your sincerity. I appreciate that you are hanging in here with this discussion.
I believe your last post falls short of the question I’m posing: We can teach them about the choice, but at some point we must (I am submitting) stand away and let them make the choice.
Couching it in terms of free will, but then using “good vs. evil” rhetoric, contradicts the entire concept of “free” will. Children, the “emerging adults”, are not making a choice if their parents are looking at them from the other side and essentially asserting that there is only one correct choice.
This is not about the veracity of Christian belief. This is about the practical, on the ground relationship we have with our children.

Gup, with respect, let me tell you that I’m not going to allow these threads to be dominated by fundamentalist trolling. There are very many Christians — I among them — who do not interpret the Scriptures in a fundamentalist way, who do not read Genesis as if it were a scientific text, and who find it possible to believe in Christianity and evolution. I respect your right to disagree, but if I see my comments threads are getting sidetracked by fundamentalist “debates,” then I will put a stop to it. I agree with you that absent an objective source of moral truth — God, in other words — moral relativism is guaranteed. But I think you are quite wrong to argue that we have no choice but to believe every word of Scripture is literally true, or all is chaos. In any case, it’s a pretty poor argument for your POV to say that it must be true because we need it to be true for instrumental reasons.

Gup20,
Your defense of pure literalism is admirable in some sense, in terms of the consistent internal logic of your beliefs. It’s an all or nothing game (or so I hear you arguing) and those who try to split the baby (or the Bible) so to speak, end up undermining their own claims to faith in the long run.
However, in as much as I doubt that anyone here will convince you of the case for evolution, or that you are likely to convince any skeptics of young Earthism of its veracity, then why not leave the case of evolution to the side. It is a troubling example to argue over in any case, since as you note it cannot be replicated in any type of experimental setting.
However, there are other scientific cases, such as Carbon-dating, where the science is based more on things one can quantify and measure (radioactive isotope decay). Obviously, it doesn’t provide for exact date measurements and relies upon assumptions about the nature of the Earth’s atmosphere over large periods of time. But for the 6,000 years thesis to be correct, such science would have to be off by exponential orders of magnitude.
Now of course, carbon-dating in and of itself does nothing to deny the truth claims of the metaphysics of Christianity. But if one ties such claims to Biblical literalism, then it is not surprising that EAs (or anyone really) would find such claims less than compelling.
Without getting into philosophical ratholes about the reliability of our own sensory perceptions, science is a way that we come to understand the material world around us. It benefits from the fact that multiple subjective observers can replicate the same “truth” through repeated experimental procedure and therefore reduce intentional or unintentional personal bias in the results.
Belief in science and its fruits does not undermine Christian belief and ethics, but it may conflict with certain claims (age of the Earth) that we have reason to believe we can assess through scientific observation.
What I can never really understand about persons who take your perspective is the motivation to try to debunk the science on its own terms. For example, I look forward to your links questioning the accuracy of carbon-dating (as I am sure they must exist in the young Earth blogosphere). But why should that even matter? If the Bible is inerrant, then do you need any scientific evidence? It seems that you cannot accept the scientific claims that support your case, but reject the ones that don’t unless you are simply intent on stacking the deck from a point of argumentation.
In other words, wouldn’t it make more sense for someone with your philosophy to end up like those Madrassas we see in the Middle East where the children chant and memorize the Koran as their sole source of education? Therein lies the difficulty.

Very interesting. You know, Rod, I am reminded of instances in scripture where spiritual perception is changed:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Num 22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.
2Ki 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain [was] full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

(I apologize for the last post. I had to refresh the capcha phrase and it must have brought a cached response from a comment made to what Rod wrote about modernity.)
GingerMan, I believe you are absolutely correct when you say that no one will be convinced by an opposing point of view. The format here is much to brief for that (though some ideas may give pause).
However, I do think that the exercise itself is useful, if not entertaining. Exposing one’s beliefs to critical review is a good way to sharpen one’s beliefs. It forces one to review whether a belief is founded on solid ground or sinking sand.
Ginger, you said, “However, there are other scientific cases, such as Carbon-dating, where the science is based more on things one can quantify and measure (radioactive isotope decay). Obviously, it doesn’t provide for exact date measurements and relies upon assumptions about the nature of the Earth’s atmosphere over large periods of time. But for the 6,000 years thesis to be correct, such science would have to be off by exponential orders of magnitude.
http://www.icr.org/article/new-rate-data-support-young-world/
I strongly recommend the link above. At the risk of dragging this into the black hole that is a creation vs evolution discussion… I am pleased to inform you that radiometric dating has become one of the strongest creationist evidences for a young earth.
Carbon 14 dating: The maximum age attainable by carbon dating is 50,000-100,000 years. When diamonds and coal are carbon dated (taken from rocks that are supposedly millions of years old) you find measurable ammounts of carbon 14. Because a diamond’s lattice is so strong, it is nearly impossible that contamination has occurred. Therefore, this is proof that the rocks – which were dated as millions of years – are actually orders of magnitude less.
All radiometric dating methods rely upon 3 assumptions:
1. The rate of decay has always remained the same
2. The amount of the original or daughter elements are the same as we see today
3. There was no contamination over the eons of time.
The RATE research group have been able to demonstrate in laboratory tests that BILLION FOLD acceleration of decay is possible with given conditions. Those conditions include heat and pressure (which are precisely the conditions one would expect from a global catastrophe such as Noah’s flood). When uranium decays into lead in granite, one by-product is helium. Helium diffuses from granite at a measurable rate. What the RATE research group found was that, while rocks were radiometricly dated at millions of years, they all contained far too much helium. The amount of helium in ratio to the decayed elements is consistent with approximately 6000 years of helium diffusion. Below is a summery of the RATE group’s findings:
The RATE Team discovered:
1. Conventional radioisotope dating methods are inconsistent and therefore not reliable. In dating the same rock layer, radioisotope dating showed four different ages.
2. Substantial amounts of helium found in crystals within granite. If the earth evolved over billions of years, all the helium should have already escaped.
3. Radiohalos in rocks caused by the decay of uranium and polonium, which strongly suggests a rapid decay rate, not gradual decay over billions of years.
4. Diamonds thought to be millions/billions of years old by evolutionists contain significant levels of carbon-14. Since carbon-14 decays quickly, none should have been found in the diamonds if the evolutionary age is correct.
You said you looked forward to this information, and I hope that I have not disappointed.

Gup20,
Since we really do need to avoid devolving this thread into evolution vs. creationism, I suggest you read the linked article above.
It’s concluding bon mots:
When people thought that science was unbiased and unbound by culture, they were simply wrong. On the other hand, when people thought that science was completely socially constructed, they were simply wrong. But if you believe that thinking science is unbiased is just as wrong as thinking that science is socially constructed, then your view is not even wronger than wrong.

gup20, the scientific community has pointed out numerous flaws in the RATE experiments. For example the creationist scientists conducting them were untrained in experimental geochronology, so their methodology could be flawed.

Gup20,
I appreciate your willingness to engage the discussion. However, I am not a geological scientist and therefore cannot engage the particulars of carbon science at a level of detail that would be necessary to respond to the links you provided. However, as we both concede, a forum such as this is really less about converting another person to one’s own point of view (difficult even under the most ideal of settings), but in coming to a broader understanding of other perspectives. Plus, I can hear Rod groaning now about this thread turning into a creationist food fight, so let me take a different tack.
I note that the link you provide comes from the Institute for Creation Research, whose slogan appears to be “Biblical. Accurate. Certain.” Does this not give you any pause with respect to the independent reliability of the data they publish? In other words, would you expect the material they publish to give equal consideration to evidence that supports and refutes Biblical claims? I do not ask this in an attempt at condescension, but to try to seriously understand your view.
To depersonalize the question, would you expect that the ICR’s apparent theological commitments should/should not affect how a disinterested observer, meaning a person without any prior commitments to either atheism or Christianity, should weigh their scientific claims?
I can appreciate the fact that often science is used as a club in the service of those committed to philosophical naturalism, wherein people cite scientific evidence for the age of the Earth (fossil record, carbon dating, etc.) for example, and attempt to use this singular piece of evidence as the sole “proof” that knocks the legs out from under any Christian religious commitment. This is obviously a cheap way of arguing against faith, unless of course you agree to the premise of their position (i.e. that factually challenging a single literalist interpretation of scripture is akin to debunking the entire religion).
In other words, making such a claim weakens your philosophical position. Any single proof to the contrary (no matter how small) debunks your beliefs en toto, making your philosophical position more fragile. It also turns many, many scientists into heretics by definition. See Galileo for instance (or maybe you will surprise me here and come out in favor of the geocentric universe, that outta really heat up these comment boxes ).
But this circles back to the point I made in my last post, which is that if your belief in scripture is hermetically sealed (impervious to any possible disputation), then why is there a necessity (or even a desire) to argue with scientific counter-evidence on specifically scientific terms as the ICR appears to do? In such a case, does it matter what any scientist says, pro or con?
Or stated more directly, what would constitute “proof” for you that any singular, literal factual claim of the Bible is in error (e.g. the age of Earth)? I think the answer to this question will say a lot about whether there is really any purpose in bringing scientific claims into the discussion at all.

GingerMan said, “I note that the link you provide comes from the Institute for Creation Research, whose slogan appears to be “Biblical. Accurate. Certain.” Does this not give you any pause with respect to the independent reliability of the data they publish?”
Does it give you pause when you realize that evolutionists do the exact same thing, excluding by intention and assumption the very possibility of a creator?
Everyone has their worldview and starting assumptions. For Creationists, its that the Bible is the ultimate authority. For evolutionists, it is materialism and humanism.

MH said, ” gup20, the scientific community has pointed out numerous flaws in the RATE experiments. For example the creationist scientists conducting them were untrained in experimental geochronology, so their methodology could be flawed.
Could be? So the scientific community didn’t bother to verify the claims for themselves, but rather attacked the credentials of the PhD scientists who worked on the project? Last time I checked, ad hominem was an invalid form of argument.

Sorry, Gup20, but there’s nothing ad hominem about rejecting the “findings” of scientists who are not credentialed in the area of specialty in question.
That’s like saying a neurosurgeon has no business criticizing an astrophysicist’s claims about neurophysiology. The ICR claims have, in fact, been debunked by geologists and geophysicists.

Gup20,
I think we may be reaching the end of any productive dialogue (if that is even possible on a blog), so I will leave you with this…
Re: Everyone has their worldview and starting assumptions. For Creationists, its that the Bible is the ultimate authority. For evolutionists, it is materialism and humanism.
Your comment above, in a weird way, seems almost the ultimate in relativism. You imply that there is no way to make sense of any competing knowledge claims (scientific, theological, or otherwise) bc the person presenting any evidence is loading the dice from their own philosophical presuppositions to such a degree that they can never be trusted, unless one already agrees their conclusions of course.
But I think you miss my point. I never made any claims about the existence or lack thereof for God. The question I was burrowing down on is not the veracity of specific truth claims of the virgin birth, evolution, or the age of Earth, it is about a philosophical openness to revising one’s claim to knowledge.
I think that the record of science is pretty strong with respect to greatly expanding the scope of human understanding of our material world (curing polio, atomic energy, man on the moon, etc.). And this knowledge is the fruit of a procedural and philosophical willingness to accept new information and/or abandon claims that were once held to be “true.”
But acknowledging the capacity of science to explain our material world (however limited it still may be) is not the same as saying science can prove or disprove the existence of God (or that it should even try to). This is why the usage of scientific arguments from people like ICR to bolster their religious claims puzzle me so. The existence of God is not a scientific question, at least not as I conceive of either science or God.
My last question to you was sparked by recalling the challenge that Sam Harris (atheist) put to Andrew Sullivan (Christian) in their online debate about faith on Beliefnet:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Is-Religion-Built-Upon-Lies.aspx?p=4
If I thought there were nothing you could say to convince me of the legitimacy of your point of view, I could scarcely be having this debate in good faith. I remain open to evidence and argument on this and all other fronts.
In fact, I could easily imagine a scenario that would persuade me of the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, and the utter sanctity of the blessed Virgin. Granted, this communication would have to be of the crass “signs and wonders” variety, for I am a very doubting Thomas, but there is no question that my mind could be fundamentally changed, even in this email exchange.
If, for instance, your “Imaginary Friend” gave you some highly specific information that you could not have obtained by any other means, I would take this as powerful evidence in favor of your point of view. To increase my vulnerability to this line of attack, I have just written a 30-digit number on a scrap of paper and hidden it in my office. If God tells you (or any of our readers) what this number is, I will be appropriately astounded and will publicize the results of this experiment to the limit of my abilities.
[snip]
The point, of course, is that if God exists, it would be trivially easy for Him to blow my mind. (Hint to the Creator: I’m thinking of an even number, and it’s not 927459757074561008328610835528).
Now, on the one hand, Harris is trying to be cheeky while making his point, namely that he can define the criteria whereby he would be willing to change his mind.
However, at the same time, I think the sort of parlor trick example Harris uses is a bit unfair to believers, since it asks God to play by the rules limited to scientific inquiry alone. In short, Harris’ conception of God is too small.
And so this is what troubles me, if I may use that word, about some of your earlier posts. By tying faith in God to some specific material fact (e.g. age of the Earth), about which we may someday (if you don’t believe we have already) have a definitive empirical scientific answer, seems to diminish the very idea of God.
With respect, it is strange to me that you see this aspect of your faith as evidence of its strength when from the outside it appears as a weakness.
Peace.
- GingerMan

The rise of a generation unable to accept the reality of any commitments, beliefs or judgments beyond their own impressions and emotions is deeply unsettling. But how can we shore up or re-establish acceptance of the opposite, of a grasp of reality beyond subjective impressions, objective moral judgments, religous truth claims and the cultural coherence they create? Can this only be achieved by straining or pretending to sustain the outworn religious truth claims of previous ages, that have lost their power to convince, to create a world view, to order lives and direct conduct?
I’m afraid that the arguments regularly trotted out by apologists don’t cut it and are just not up to the task.