How Dare You, Simon Conway Morris!

Thanks to the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) listServ, I was directed to Simon Conway Morris's¹ short article, from last February, Darwin was right. Up to a point. Sorry for being late to the show.

I enjoyed and largely agreed with the Conway Morris article. I like his style.

First of all, he praises Darwin's theory:

But perhaps now is the time to rejoice not in what Darwin got right, and in demonstrating the reality of evolution in the context of entirely unexceptional natural processes there is no dispute

And even though you know there is a pregnant but about to give birth, this praise of Darwin's legacy is genuine and sincere, not faint and damning. Evolution really does provide a powerful framework for understanding the diversity of life. We may differ on whether the engine under the hood is powered by purely natural fuel (fossil fuel?) or by (or at least initiated by) God. But there can be no question that the scientific data tell, overwhelmingly, a story of common descent. There is no viable scientific theory challenging evolution in the whole, although there are plenty of internecine skirmishes.

When the but is realized, it is in the sense that however good evolution is, it doesn't explain everything. There is, in Conway Morris's words, unfinished business.

Of course saying so will land Conway Morris in a situation akin to: I can say my brother is an oaf, but you keep your damn mouth shut! When a theistic detractor asserts that "evolution is unfalsifiable; it can be made to explain anything"² evolution proponents rightly point out that evolution is a bona fide scientific theory replete with unanswered questions, internal squabbles, predictions, and tests. But if a theistic supporter (a TE) points out that evolution is a bona fide scientific theory with unanswered questions, internal squabbles, etc., the tendency of the atheist proponents is to circle the wagons. We can say that—but not you. We have our cake, and it is quite tasty thank you very much.

Conway Morris faces that sort of response, as the comments to his article attest.

Conway Morris questions the predictability of evolution. It is a question of degree. Evolution certainly makes predictions: the fusing of the human chromosome, where to look, geologically and geographically, for transition fossils, what those fossils will look like, etc. But it does not make grand predictions about the future—rather many of its predictions are similar to anthropic predictions in physics. Here we are at time C. There we were at time A. Given that we didn't supernaturally hop from A to C, we can predict what we might find in the fossil record or the DNA paper trail at intermediate time B. Like the anthropic predictions, much is dependent on the observation that we are here. Conway Morris points out, however, something quite true: evolution is not so good at answering: what will this all be like at future time D? Evolution is good at interpolating. But extrapolating? Not so much.

Regarding this weakness in future predictability, Conway Morris reminds us that there is a tension arising from the fossil record and the extant taxon. The standard explanation is: life's too complex to allow for predicting the future. That fly in the ointment in this explanation is Conway Morris's signature drum: evolutionary convergence, i.e., when organisms evolve strikingly similar solutions long after they have diverged from their last common ancestor. Convergence seems to indicate that the solution space is not, as one might imagine, semi-infinite, but rather it is limited. That should make evolutionary predictions easier.

A fair question, at least to this non-biologist—but not one that should be asked by a theist. (Again, I refer you to the comments.) No, you must present your street creds before you ask such a question.

Conway Morris asks additional questions concerning complex cellular biochemistry, consciousness, and a human intelligence so overpowered that it leads us to the so-called "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" conundrum. He then, and I'm paraphrasing, suggests that some of these deeper questions may transcend the theory of evolution. Perhaps evolution, grand and successful as it is, is not a comprehensive framework.

Never mind that scientists already acknowledge this on the front-end of the time line. Ask about the origin of life and you will be smothered with refrains of: that's not evolution, that's abiogenesis. Conway Morris suggests that on the high end evolution may also reach its limit as a scientific theory, writing:

Of course, Darwin told us how to get there and by what mechanism, but neither why it is in the first place, nor how on earth we actually understand it.

It is an observation that is manifestly true, and yet Conway Morris is criticized for making it, more so for what he is rather than what he says. Evolution does not tell us how life started. And evolution does not tell us how it is that we understand evolution.

None of this should be controversial, and none of it should be subject to "Goddidit" criticisms. For while Conway Morris may well believe that God did it, he does not advocate giving up research into any of these questions. And he does not advocate teaching Goddidit in public school science class. But derisive cries of Goddidit are the first line of attack if a theistic evolutionist dares to say that evolution doesn't explain everything about life.

The bottom line is: any scientist attacked by atheists, Ken Ham Inc.³ and Team Dembski just has to be doing something right.

---

¹ Simon Conway Morris holds an Ad Hominem Chair in Evolutionary Palaeobiology, at the University of Cambridge. He is a Fellow of St John's College, and also of the Royal Society. I admit that I do not know what an Ad Hominem Chair is. But I like the sound of it.

² No, that's evolutionary psychology, not evolution. Evolutionary psychology really does explain everything, like why blonds have more fun.

³ In truth I don't know that the YEC crowd has ever attacked Conway Morris, but we can safely assume that he is not be on AiG's Christmas card list.

More on the Slavery and Christianity question

---

Note: this is reprinted from a comment of mine on the blog Positive Liberty.

I was addressing a question from blog commenter Michael Heath, who has commented occasionally on this blog as well, who characterized my position regarding slavery and the New Testament this way:

Mr. Heddle believes God changed his position (on slavery) for us post-New Covenant. In the background is also the view, which I am arguing against, that the New Testament condones slavery.

This was in the context of a larger debate: Michael Heath (and some others) arguing that the New Testament condones slavery--

I wanted to save my response—not because it is especially good but because I may want to come back to the argument quickly. The easiest way is to repost it here, on my own blog.

My response—with some minor tweaks:

---

No, I don't think God changed his position, although maybe that's just semantics as they say. Instead what we have here is case law. What is appropriate for Jews before Christ, as part of God's unfolding plan of redemption and instruction, is not necessarily appropriate for the Christian. I think you know my oft-cited example in this regard: It was good and proper and moral and ethical and even commanded for Jews to sacrifice animals for atonement. It would, however, be an abomination for Christians to do so. God didn't change his position or his mind. Instead the most dramatic event in history (the cross) occurred, and naturally the before and after worlds are quite different.

⁹Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, ¹⁰and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. (Titus 2:9-10)

When it comes to the passage in Titus, we have an acknowledgment that slavery exists and instruction for Christians suffering that plight—and there were many because Christianity first appealed primarily to the lower rungs of society. Given that Christians found themselves in bondage, what should Paul's instruction be:

A) Rebel against your masters, or
B) In your station bear witness in words and deed to the strength of gospel and to the fact that Christians are just pilgrims in this or any land.

Option B, which some interpret, as condoning slavery–is really, in my opinion, the only choice Paul had consistent with other New Testament teaching. Paul didn't rebel when falsely imprisoned; he obeyed his guards and witnessed to them. Why would he instruct slaves to act differently?

Even in dealing with Christian ownership of slaves, such as with Philemon, we can likewise imagine two broad approaches:

A) A command to free slaves immediately or
B) An appeal and apostolic persuasion to do the right thing

Once again it is option B, that is most consistent with the New Testament upgraded (to more difficult) model of sin--that is is measured by the desires of the heart rather than by deeds. Philemon's sin can only be avoided if Philemon wants to free Onesimus, not if he is commanded to. This lesson is being taught. As for Onesimus, I think we can safely infer that Paul considered whether Onesimus remained as a slave or was freed somewhat secondary—Onesimus might even have a stronger witness as a slave. This does not constitute a condoning of slavery—it's a prioritizing: the gospel, and God's glory, trumps all. It is not a social or a political gospel—it is a gospel designed for just one thing: to bring glory to God. Onesimus can bring glory to God as free or slave. Paul can bring glory to God as free or imprisoned. Philemon can bring glory to God by freeing Onesimus, but not by being commanded to do so.

For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. (Hebrews 7:12)

To answer whether the New Testament condones Christianity you must, I believe, turn to the deliverer of the new law that comes with the New Covenant, Jesus. When Jesus gave this new law, primarily in the Sermon on the Mount—can we find anything in there that is consistent with slavery? I think you cannot—and on the contrary what I see is that his second greatest commandment, and his primary instruction for how man should interact with his fellow man, completely rules out any possibility that the New Testament condones slavery.

Some point out the lack of an explicit condemnation, but the New Testament, again, emphasizes the heart as opposed to enumerating do's and don'ts. We are not supposed to be told: slavery is bad. It is only to our advantage if we recognize and believe that slavery is bad, on the basis of Jesus' teaching. The NT is full of this more complete revelation of the law. For example, the explicit command to tithe is gone—replaced with: give, but only if you can do so joyfully, otherwise don't even bother.

Challenge Answers

For what it's worth, in the Science/Faith Challenge:

The first five papers are from atheists. The last five are from Christians.

Sunday School, Fall '09

The first session of the fall semester will be a six-to-eight week look at a classic: R. C. Sproul's Chosen by God. This short, highly readable introduction to Calvinism (via the imperfect yet helpful TULIP acrostic) is an absolute must-read for the student interested in learning about the very basics of doctrines of grace.

There is some fear that I'll be bringing coals to New Castle--but I think the series will be informative and fun.

I think I have already mentioned that when I first became a Christian I was a strong Arminian and a strong per-trib pre-mill dispensationalist. Two books radically changed my theology, because I found each presented interpretations much more aligned with scripture: Sproul's Chosen By God and Philip Mauro's The Gospel of the Kingdom (1928). 

What is an interesting aside to these two books is that they belie the notion that civility has gone the way of the dodo. Sproul's book, the more modern by far, is gracious in its attack on Armininianism. Mauro's book in its attack on dispensationalism--not so much.

Science/Faith Challenge

Reader JJS P.Eng requested the science/faith challenge. Below is a short version.

What you will find are ten abstracts (or in some cases, introductions) of ten peer-reviewed papers. Five are from unbelievers, five are from believers.

The hypothesis: If science and religion are incompatible, one should be able to determine the polluting effects of religion and pick out the tainted papers. So find the five written by believers. If you can't, then the science/faith incompatibility charge has no teeth, no effect, it is in fact unfalsifiable and indemonstrable, and is therefore meaningless.

Here are some caveats and tidbits:

• In almost all cases they are single-author papers. In a couple they have two authors. In those cases, the "target" author is the first author.
  
  
• Some of the formatting was lost--especially some Greek characters, but that shouldn't matter.
  
  
• One of them is from a scientist named Darwin!
  
  
• That same scientist, who sadly passed away, I loved dearly--and was related to me by marriage.
  
  
• I would say at least two (one in each group) and possibly four (two in each group) are by world-class (as in NAS quality) scientists. (Not to diminish the others, all of whom are competent researchers.)
  
  
• You could, obviously, easily cheat by Google.
  
  
• One of them should be a dead giveaway--a freebie--to members of the faith/science blogghetto.

1) The Quantum Hall Fluid and Non–Commutative Chern Simons Theory

The first part of this paper is a review of the author’s work with S. Bahcall which gave an elementary derivation of the Chern Simons description of the Quantum Hall effect for filling fraction 1/n. The notation has been modernized to conform with standard gauge theory conventions. In the second part arguments are given to support the claim that abelian non–commutative Chern Simons theory at level n is exactly equivalent to the Laughlin theory at filling fraction 1/n. The theory may also be formulated as a matrix theory similar to that describing D0–branes in string theory. Finally it can also be thought of as the quantum theory of mappings between two non–commutative spaces, the first being the target space and the second being the base space.



2) A New Class of Solutions to the Strong CP Problem with a Small Two-Loop θ

While the Standard Model (SM) has been enjoying fantastic success, it does have many loose ends which are potentially our guidepost to the new physics of the future. Two of the most significant loose ends are strong CP problem and the fermion mass hierarchy. Within the SM, the Yukawa couplings give rise to the fermion masses of all three generations and their mixings including the CP violation. Indeed it was first observed by Kobayashi and Maskawa[1] (KM) that only two generations cannot support any CP violating phase.The fact that all three generations have to be involved to create a CP violating phenomena, makes KM model an extremely subtle and beautiful model for CP violation. It also makes CP violation tightly connected with flavor physics.



3. Development and axonal outgrowth of identified motoneurons in the zebrafish

We have observed the development of live, fluorescently labeled motoneurons in the spinal cord of embryonic and larval zebrafish. There are 2 classes of motoneurons: primary and secondary. On each side of each spinal segment there are 3 individually identifiable primary motoneurons, named CaP, MiP, and RoP. The motoneurons of the embryo and larva are similar in morphology and projection pattern to those of the adult. During initial development, axons of primary motoneurons make cell-specific, divergent pathway choices and grow without error to targets appropriate for their adult functions. We observed no period of cell death, and except for one consistently observed case, there was no remodeling of peripheral arbors. We have observed a consistent temporal sequence of axonal outgrowth within each spinal segment.



4. Isoperimetric Numbers of Cayley Graphs Arising from Generalized Dihedral Groups

Let n, x be positive integers satisfying 1 <>. Let Hn,x be a group admitting a presentation of the form ha, b | an = b2 = (ba)x = 1i. When x = 2 the group Hn,x is the familiar dihedral group, D2n. Groups of the form Hn,x will be referred to as generalized dihedral groups. It is possible to associate a cubic Cayley graph to each such group, and we consider the problem of finding the isoperimetric number, i(G), of these graphs. In section two we prove some propositions about isoperimetric numbers of regular graphs. In section three the special cases when x = 2, 3 are analyzed. The former case is solved completely. An upper bound, based on an analysis of the cycle structure of the graph, is given in the latter case. Generalizations of these results are provided in section four. The indices of these graphs are calculated in section five, and a lower bound on i(G) is obtained as a result. We conclude with several conjectures suggested by the results from earlier sections.



5. The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology

We demonstrate that as we extrapolate the current _CDM universe forward in time, all evidence of the Hubble expansion will disappear, so that observers in our “island universe” will be fundamentally incapable of determining the true nature of the universe, including the existence of the highly dominant vacuum energy, the existence of the CMB, and the primordial origin of light elements. With these pillars of the modern Big Bang gone, this epoch will mark the end of cosmology and the return of a static universe. In this sense, the coordinate system appropriate for future observers will perhaps fittingly resemble the static coordinate system in which the de Sitter universe was first presented.


6. Supramolecular structure of the thylakoid membrane of Prochlorothrix hollandica: a chlorophyll b-containing prokaryote.

Prochlorothrix hollandica is a newly described photosynthetic prokaryote, which contains chlorophylls a and b. In this paper we report the results of freeze fracture and freeze etch studies of the organization of the photosynthetic thylakoid membranes of Prochlorothrix. These membranes exhibit four distinct fracture faces in freeze fractured preparations, two of which are derived from membrane splitting in stacked regions of the thylakoid membrane, and two of which are derived from nonstacked regions. The existence of these four faces confirms that the thylakoid membranes of Prochlorothrix, like those of green plants, display true membrane stacking and have different internal composition in stacked and non-stacked regions, a phenomenon that has been given the name lateral heterogeneity. The general details of these fracture faces are similar to those of green plants, although the intramembrane particles of Prochlorothrix are generally smaller than those of green plants by as much as 30%. Freeze etched membrane surfaces have also been studied, and the results of these studies confirm freeze fracture observations. The outer surface of the thylakoid membrane displays both small (less than 8.0 nm) and large (greater than 10.0 nm) particles. The inner surface of the thylakoid membrane is covered with tetrameric particles, which are concentrated into stacked membrane regions, a situation that is similar to the inner surfaces of the thylakoid membranes of green plants. These tetramers have never before been reported in a prokaryote. The photosynthetic membranes of Prochlorothrix therefore represent a prokaryotic system that is remarkably similar, in structural terms, to the photosynthetic membranes found in chloroplasts of green plants.



7. Predicting the Ionization Threshold for Carriers in Excited Semiconductors

A simple set of formulas is presented which allows prediction of the fraction of ionized carriers in an electron-hole-exciton gas in a photoexcited semiconductor. These results are related to recent experiments with excitons in single and double quantum wells. Many researchers in semiconductor physics talk of \the" Mott transition density in a system of excitons and electron-hole plasma, but do not have a clear handle on exactly how to predict that density as a function of temperature and material parameters in a given system. While numerical studies have been performed for the fraction of free carriers as a function of carrier density and temperature [1, 2], these do not give a readily-accessible intuition for the transition. In this paper I present a simple approach which does not involve heavy numerical methods, but is still fairly realistic. The theory is based on two well-known approximations, which are the massaction equation for equilibrium in when di_erent species can form bound states, and the static (Debye) screening approximation. In addition, simple approximations are used for numerical calculations of the excitonic Rydberg as a function of screening length.



8. Relativity and the Minimum Slope of the Isgur-Wise Function

Sum rules based upon heavy quark effective theory indicate that the Isgur-Wise function ζ( w ) has a minimum slope ρ²_min as w → 1, where ρ²_min = 0 for light degrees of freedom with zero spin and ρ²_min = 1/4 for light spin 1/2 .Quark-model studies reveal sources for a minimum slope from a variety of relativistic effects. In this paper the origins of the minimum slope in the sum rule and quark-model approaches are compared by considering hadrons with arbitrary light spin. In both approaches the minimum slope increases with the light spin j_l, but there appears to be no detailed correspondence between the quark-model and sum-rule approaches.



9. Channel kets, entangled states, and the location of quantum information

The well-known duality relating entangled states and noisy quantum channels is expressed in terms of a channel ket, a pure state on a suitable tripartite system, which functions as a pre-probability allowing the calculation of statistical correlations between, for example, the entrance and exit of a channel, once a framework has been chosen so as to allow a consistent set of probabilities. In each framework the standard notions of ordinary (classical) information theory apply, and it makes sense to ask whether information of a particular sort about one system is or is not present in another system. Quantum effects arise when a single pre-probability is used to compute statistical correlations in different incompatible frameworks, and various constraints on the presence and absence of different kinds of information are expressed in a set of all-or-nothing theorems which generalize or give a precise meaning to the concept of “no-cloning.” These theorems are used to discuss: the location of information in quantum channels modeled using a mixed-state environment; the CQ (classical-quantum) channels introduced by Holevo; and the location of information in the physical carriers of a quantum code. It is proposed that both channel and entanglement problems be classified in terms of pure states (functioning as pre-probabilities) on systems of p ≥ 2 parts, with mixed bipartite entanglement and simple noisy channels belonging to the category p = 3, a five-qubit code to the category p = 6, etc.; then by the dimensions of the Hilbert spaces of the component parts, along with other criteria yet to be determined.



10. LASPE: a subroutine for generating straggling distributions for positrons and electrons

Computer codes used for analysis of data from high energy electron scattering experiments generally use the Rutherford cross-section based distribution derived by Landau to calculate the energy lost by electrons due to straggling. We have developed a FORTRAN program which evaluates straggling distributions incorporating Møller and Bhabha cross-sections. In e- scattering analysis, this program can be used to evaluate the precision of existing Rutherford-based distributions. In addition, the calculation of the e+ straggling distribution is relevant to the analysis of experiments such as those investigating dispersive effects in nuclear electromagnetic processes by comparing results obtained from e^- and e⁺ scattering from identical nuclei. In addition to a full straggling distribution, the output includes the parameters which characterize the distribution as well as a table of integrals of the distribution.

The Sad Case of Sam Harris

Sam Harris has written yet another iteration of his same-ole, same-ole argument that Francis Collins is unfit to serve as director of the National Institutes of Health. Why? Because Collins is a strong, vocal, evangelical Christian. A don’t-ask-don’t-tell Christian would be OK, so it's *cough* not about Collins being a Christian. It is about him being an uppity, arrogant, loud-mouthed, in-your-face Christian who is not a credit to his religion and doesn’t know how to keep in his place. Why someone who is open about his beliefs is not acceptable while someone who keeps them in secret is acceptable is only understood when you realize that Harris hates Christianity. When it cannot be ignored, he goes on the offensive.

It is said that northern racists don't care how far blacks make it, as long as they don’t live near them. Harris (and Coyne and Myers) are more like the southern racist who doesn’t mind living next to a black man, as long as he remembers his proper station in life.

Although making the same case he always does, this particular essay by Harris is uncharacteristically poorly written. Consider this non sequitur near the beginning:

Even religious extremists value some of the products of science—antibiotics, computers, bombs, etc.—and these seeds of inquisitiveness, we are told, can be patiently nurtured in a way that offers no insult to religious faith.

Yeah—so what? This is akin to the there are no atheists in a foxhole aphorism. It has absolutely nothing to do with Collins’s qualifications to lead the NIH.

Harris expresses, with grave concern:

Just imagine how scientific it would seem if Collins, as a devout Hindu, informed his audience that Lord Brahma had created the universe and now sleeps; Lord Vishnu sustains it and tinkers with our DNA (in way that respects the law of karma and rebirth); and Lord Shiva will eventually destroy it in a great conflagration.

First of all this is a fallacious (and common, in this debate), good-for-the-goose, good-for-the-gander argument. It is of the form: Those damn hypocritical Christians would be apoplectic if a devout Moslem was nominated for the NIH position. Yes, some of them would—but their postulated error cannot be recycled (pre-cycled?) as a reason to argue against Collins. Sammy—you have heard the one about two wrongs not making a right? Right?

It truth, if Collins were a Hindu (to take Harris’s example) it would make not a bit of difference. As for any government job, the relevant criteria can be summarized as 1) Are you the most qualified applicant? 2) Are you permitted to work, legally, in the United States? 3) Do you currently engage or have you engaged in any disqualifying illegal activities? and 4) Are you engaged in any secret financial or personal hobbies that might render you a national security risk?

Science more or less dispenses with all criteria except number one. Science is a meritocracy, one of the few true meritocracies. What has always been relevant in science is: what is the quality of your work? and, to a lesser extent, what is the volume of your work?

On the sole count of what is actually relevant for holding a scientific position Harris, in a rare display of integrity, or more likely a calculated display of faux integrity, writes, (in what should be the entirety of his essay):

One must admit that his [Collins’s] credentials are impeccable: he is a physical chemist, a medical geneticist, and the former head of the Human Genome Project

You can just about detect the regret and reluctance with which Harris must concede this inconvenient fact—which he never mentions again and treats as totally incidental. He only turns his head aside and burps it out, one can speculate, for CYA purposes. I wasn’t unfair to Collins. I mentioned he was qualified. Aren’t I the even-handed one?

The rest of the Harris’s essay is devoted to Collins’s Christianity. To the Harris’s of the world, it doesn’t matter that Sonia Sotomayor is an impeccably qualified jurist, it only matters that she is proud and vocal about being a Latina.

Show, don’t tell

What about evidence? Anyone have any actual evidence that Collins’s religiosity renders him unfit to lead the NIH? Harris? Coyne? Myers? Anyone?

I have repeatedly asked, on some enormously popular websites such as Myers’s own Pharyngula, for someone, anyone, to demonstrate the science/faith incompatibility charge. The people making this claim are supposed to be scientists or at least scientifically literate. They should understand that that a hypothesis than cannot lend itself to testing is inherently unscientific. As many of you know, I proposed a test: I would provide ten peer-reviewed scientific papers, five from believers and five from unbelievers. If the charge that religion and science are incompatible is more than just words, we can posit that it should be possible to detect which papers are polluted by the author’s religion. No one has ever accepted the challenge.

The extent of the “proof” of their claim that science and religion are incompatible is summarized by this recent comment on Pharyngula:

since we've already seen examples of Collins claiming that certain phenomena, e.g. human morality, are evidence of divine intervention, it's pretty clear that his religion is interfering in his science already (Emphasis added.)

Behold the standard of proof to the New Atheists that religion and science are incompatible. It is not that that the charge can be substantiated with data, but that it is “pretty clear” to them.

Painted in a corner, refusing to acknowledge the obvious, that Collins’s beliefs are at most orthogonal but not incompatible with science, New Atheists respond with a template¹:

Blah blah blah, compartmentalization, blah blah blah cognitive dissonance, blah blah blah, Collins/Miller et.al. are so pwned, blah blah blah.

That is, they rely on something that explains everything and nothing, the psychobabble term compartmentalization (it’s like breathing—who doesn’t?) and a misuse of the term cognitive dissonance².

Collins’s Conversion Account is Foobar

Harris’s attack on Collins—like all other attacks on Collins, amount to nothing more than telling us, in so many ways, that Collins is a Christian. That pattern is: Collins is a Christian! No, I mean he is really a Christian. Did I tell you just how much of a Christian Collins is? He friggin’ writes about his Christianity! He is not embarrassed about it like he should be, why he is proud of it! Unthinkable! Absurd!

At least here Harris is, as he often is, more interesting than Coyne or Dawkins or Myers. Because Harris also questions what Collins wasn’t, writing:

How something breaks often says a lot about what it was. Collins’s claim to have been an atheist seems especially suspect

You might ask why Harris bothered mentioning this. I can tell you from experience: he can’t help himself. Atheists, at least those of the “New and Deteriorated” flavor³, seek a sort of racial purity. Like Scientologists, they deem it acceptable that you should join them but should you ever leave them it was only because you were not a True Atheist™. A corollary of this dogma is that Stalin was not an atheist, but the Archbishop of a religion: Stalinism. Mao was not an atheist, but the Pope of The First Church of Maoism.

Collins's personal epiphany—the famous waterfall story, really irks Harris. Again we see that the problem is that Collins just can’t shut-up in regards to his shortcomings. Harris writes, concerning Collins’s conversion account:

It is simply astounding that this passage [Collins’s conversion account] was written by a scientist with the intent of demonstrating the compatibility of faith and reason. While Collins argues for the rational basis of his faith, passages like this make it clear that he “decided” (his word) to believe in God for emotional reasons. And if we thought Collins’ reasoning could grow no more labile, he has since divulged that the waterfall was frozen into three streams, which put him in mind of the Holy Trinity.

Oh noes! Beauty in nature made Collins get emotional and think of God, and something he saw brought to mind the doctrine of the Trinity! Burn his scientific papers that passed peer review—burn them! He’s a witch!

This from a man (Harris) who has much in common with Shirley MacLaine (perhaps they were even married in a previous life); a man who is into Eastern Mysticism. A man who looks favorably on xenoglossy. A man who in his best seller The End of Faith wrote⁴:

Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical.

For him to argue that Collins’s beliefs demonstrate irrationality –why the cajones, they must be the size of Brazil.

Along the same lines Harris opines, concerning Collin’s Polkinghorne's (correction made after publication) religious writings:

... however, is that it is impossible to differentiate his writing on religion—which now fills an entire shelf of books—from an extraordinarily patient Sokal-style hoax

Actually the differentiation is trivial. Sokal submitted his delightful hoax to a post-modern journal as if it were a legitimate paper. Collins Polkinghorne does not submit his religious writings as scientific research papers to Nature. Come on Sammy—the difference, far from impossible to discern, is manifestly obvious. On the other hand, it might really be impossible to distinguish Harris’s writings on Eastern Mysticism from other eastern mystics, such as the late David Carridine.

Oh, that’s just Sammy being Sammy

Another concern about Collins is that he would be in charge of the money and might direct research funds away from uncomfortable topics. Here, in a bizarre other-worldly manner, Harris projects his own inadequacies on Collins.

He does this by comparing the case of Collins to that of Nobel Laureate James Watson, he of DNA fame, who recently lost a position because of indelicate comments on possible intellectual differences among the races. Harris writes, concerning Watson’s views:

Watson’s opinions on race are disturbing, but his underlying point was not, in principle, unscientific. There may very well be detectable differences in intelligence between races. Given the genetic consequences of a population living in isolation for tens of thousands of years it would, in fact, be very surprising if there were no differences between racial or ethnic groups waiting to be discovered. I say this not to defend Watson’s fascination with race, or to suggest that such race-focused research might be worth doing. I am merely observing that there is, at least, a possible scientific basis for his views. While Watson’s statement was obnoxious, one cannot say that his views are utterly irrational or that, by merely giving voice to them, he has repudiated the scientific worldview and declared himself immune to its further discoveries.

It takes a while to parse Harris’s mishmash. I’ll point out only the most glaring inconsistency:

Harris (not me, not Collins—Harris) argues that there may be detectable differences in intelligence among the races, and in fact that it would be "surprising" if there were no differences awaiting discovery. He then strongly suggests that he would not support such research.

Well, why not? Science is not emotional. Science is not politically correct. Restricting research into uncomfortable areas is part of the hypothetical case against Collins—e.g., that he would not support research into the evolutionary origin of human morality. If Harris thinks it would be "surprising" that there are no intellectual differences among the races, why, as a scientist, would he place such research off limits? The reason: Harris's emotions get the better of him. With Collins the charge of research bias due to emotionality is trumped up—with Harris it is demonstrable.

I have argued elsewhere that the charge that Collins would restrict funds to research areas that might challenge his faith is ludicrous. For at least four reasons the fear is unwarranted. In no particular order:

1. To avoid the appearance of a bias--i.e., Collins might actually overcompensate. That would not be without precedent. Some scientists other than me might recognize the effect in a slightly different form: A nuclear physicist placed in charge of physics at the NSF is not necessarily a good thing for nuclear physics—there is a natural tendency to work to dispel fears of bias in the community.
   
2. Because, perhaps, he fully expects a negative result. If Collins has faith that science cannot demonstrate the development human morality in purely evolutionary terms, then he has as much vested in the research as those who are confident that science can. He’ll be validated by a negative result more than by not doing the research at all. After all, as Harris likes to point out, Collins is a true believer, a zealot. As such he would not fear research into uncomfortable areas, he would welcome it, confident that it would affirm his faith. Only the weak-minded would fear that science would undermine faith—and I think we all agree than Collins is not wishy-washy.
   
3. Even a positive result would not be damaging to his theology--just as evolution is incorporated via the get-out-of-jail-free card known as "theistic evolution" such as result would be understood as “the way God did it”. Collins has not asserted that any evolutionary role in morality would be contrary to his faith—but only that a solely evolutionary explanation would—which, given his belief in theistic evolution, is in fact impossible.
   
4. (Most importantly and most relevantly) because he is, and has always demonstrated, the ability to perform his responsibilities professionally.

Every person in history who was placed in charge of a scientific budget had/has bias. If, hypothetically speaking, the head of the DoE strongly disliked String Theory--does that mean he'll cancel all String Theory grants? Of course not.

In reality, I suspect we (scientists, that is) all are admixtures of the truth, justice, and American-way just-the-facts-ma'am scientist and the "selfish bastard" eigenstates. Most scientists, I believe, a) want, ultimately only the truth to be propagated (scientific fraud is rare), b) support all legitimate avenues of research, including the competition and c) hope like hell, privately if not publicly, that their vested models/theories receive experimental support while the competition fails. (And the more vested you are the longer it will take for you to admit defeat, the Hoyle-Effect, indicating that irrationality is always present and yet doesn’t game the system.) Everyone wants to be a winner. Collins is no different, I suspect. Thankfully professionalism, personal integrity, the scientific method itself, and peer-review all work to keep our biases in check.

As for grants, we rely on men and women of integrity to follow established peer-review processes when evaluating proposals. Collins has given no indication (to make an understatement) in his past performance that he would not behave professionally. And of course, contrary to misinformation (again, evident in the commenters on Pharyngula and elsewhere) that his evangelical Christianity demands that he proselytize at every opportunity and thereby degrade his workplace, anyone who has any understanding of evangelical Christianity would know that that's bollocks. Christians are not commanded to evangelize 24/7 (at least not with words) but at appropriate opportunities. In fact, Christians are charged, in the most unambiguous of terms, to give honest work for their wages. (You could say that by doing so they proselytize without using words—and I wouldn’t argue the point.)

Sigh. The Bottom Line

People like Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne, and P.Z. Myers are bigots. Polished and educated for sure, but bigots nonetheless. In other times and in other places we have heard their vile arguments in different forms. Yes he is a qualified scientist but he is a evangelical Christian… was Yes he is a qualified scientist but he is a Jew… Or I have no objections to interracial marriage, but think of how hard it will be for the children… etc.

---

¹ If you think I am wrong, find posts on say Pharyngula dedicated to the science/faith incompatibility and search the comments for “compartmentalization” and "cognitive dissonance".

² Cognitive dissonance must more-or-less be self diagnosed. It is the tension caused by holding contradictory beliefs. If, like Collins, you find no contradiction between science and faith, then there is no cognitive dissonance. It does not mean, it should be obvious lest it be a nearly ubiquitous malady, when someone else holds beliefs that you believe are in conflict.

³ As opposed to the "Old and Improved" atheists. It is an intellectual comparison. Harris, Dawkins, Coyne and Myers et.al., when it comes to intellectually supporting their atheism, are New Coke. The formidable Old Atheists, for example Bertrand Russell, are the Classic formula.

⁴ Which of course does not render him unfit for a scientific position. No, his downfall would (or should) rest solely on his his lack of scientific accomplishment.

---

UPDATE 1: One of the best Christian bloggers, Tom Gilson, also commented on Harris's article, in a response that is much more reasoned than my own.

UPDATE 2: A correction (as noted in the post) for which I must thank Raevmo, who probably trundled in via Telic Thoughts.

Talking in Seaford

Tomorrow, July 19, I'll be at Tom Gilson's Church, Seaford Baptist in Seaford Va, giving a talk on science and faith. Stop by if you are in the area. The talk is at 11:30, following the morning service.

I think I'll pass

Pass that is, on the American Patriot's Bible. Now it's not that I'm unpatriotic--though in truth I'm not very patriotic. It's just that as a Christian I am a citizen of a different kingdom--and just an alien and a pilgrim in this land, as wonderful as it is, was, or might become. I am certainly grateful that I do not have to worry about persecution, but I don't believe that the United States was founded by Christians, is or ever was or should ever be a Christian Nation, is One Nation Under God, or is a nation that trusts in God. Nor do I care all that much. Some, but not much. As Christians what is of primary importance is how we live. Not our country, or its creeds, laws and institutions.

Church History Lesson 15 (Defining the Faith)

Note: I taught a Sunday School on Church History in 2004 in New Hampshire. Starting in February I'll be teaching the same course here in Virginia. So any posts, including the one below, and especially for the first half of the series, are more or less repeats.

Church History Lesson 1 (Introduction)
Church History Lesson 2 (Time is Ripe: Part 1)
Church History Lesson 2 (Time is Ripe: Part 2)
Church History Lesson 3 (The Start of The Church)
Church History Lesson 4 (The Life of Jesus)
Church History Lesson 5 (The New Community)
Church History Lesson 6 (The Church at Antioch)
Church History Lesson 7 (The First Council)
Church History Lesson 8 (Paul's Second Missionary Journey)
Church History Lesson 9 (The End of the Apostolic Age)
Church History Lesson 10 (Those Crazy 60s!)
Church History Lesson 11 (The Next 200 Years)
Church History Lesson 12 (Worship in the Early Church)
Church History Lesson 13 (New Testament Writings)
Church History Lesson 14 (Early Christian Heresies)

(Note: generously adopting and lifting from F. F. Bruce's fantastic book: The Spreading Flame.)

---

Defining the Faith
Let us quickly review the early church heresies that we discussed last week.

Docetism

This was a denial of the incarnation. There were variations, but a common view was that the Christ-Spirit came upon the Jesus-man at his baptism, and departed from him at the crucifixion, leaving the Jesus-man to die. Another Docetic school held that Jesus' human form was an illusion, ghost, or phantom. As we saw last time, a form of Docetism is even found in the Koran:

And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him. (Koran 4:157)

Gnosticism

Gnosticism generally included Docetism, but went way beyond it. It was, and is, in many ways, the most dangerous of all heresies for its enduring ability to attract advocates. In the modern era it is represented by the New Age movement, Astrology, Eastern Religions, etc. It incorporated the idea of knowledge as being the path to salvation. The goal of acquiring the special knowledge was to awaken the divine within us—remnants of the creation of the material world by a misguided demigod. Jesus was a messenger of the supreme god, come to enlighten us as to how we could return to the intended spiritual state.

Gnostics, unlike Christians, do not believe that God created the earth, or that creation of the material world was "good."

The identification of the physical as evil resulted in one of two extreme lifestyle choices: asceticism or, following the logic that the flesh is irrelevant, "anything goes."

Marcionism

A sort of minimal Gnosticism in which there are two gods: the lesser god of the Old Testament, who did the unsavory act of creating the material world, and the loving merciful god of the New Testament, who was Jesus’ father. Recall that Marcion’s rewriting of scripture provided the incentive for the Church to make great strides in organizing the canon.

Montanism

One could debate whether this is properly labeled as a heresy or just a misguided sect. While Gnosticism exaggerated the importance of the intellect, Montanism overemphasized the experiential. The Montanists believed that the age of the Son had ended and the age of the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) had begun. They exalted prophets and prophetess, who spoke not as messengers, “…Thus saith the Lord,” but rather as if they were possessed by God, such as Montanus: "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete." The greatest known Montanist was Tertullian.

Defining the Faith

The church had to respond to these early heresies. One important way was through early creeds, used for the most part, especially in the earliest days, during baptisms. The creeds were modified from time to time to arrest the spread of error. Thus the early baptismal creed had to be extended beyond the line:

I believe in God the Father.

Since, for example, Marcion could affirm such a statement, to

I believe in God the Father, maker of heaven and earth.

This, neither Marcion (nor any of the Gnostics) could affirm, for it identified the God the Father—whom they would consider the New Testament god—with God the creator, or the Old Testament god. Irenaeus (115-190), Bishop of Lyon, and author of Against Heresies (Full title included Detection and Overthrow of the False Knowledge, i.e., this work was meant to refute Gnosticism) summarized, around A.D. 180, the church’s beliefs as:

"...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)

Here it is again made plain that God the Maker is also God the Father, and that the current Christian dispensation is vitally connected to the Old Testament, since through the Holy Spirit it was proclaimed through the prophets.

Here we see our threefold confession: In God the Creator and Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The orthodox understanding relationship among the three personalities, however, would not develop so easily, but more of that anon.

The Apostolic Tradition, usually credited to Hippolytus (?-236, and the first antipope) contains the following baptismal liturgy

When the elder takes hold of each of them who are to receive baptism, he shall tell each of them to renounce, saying, "I renounce you Satan, all your service, and all your works." After he has said this, he shall anoint each with the Oil of Exorcism, saying, "Let every evil spirit depart from you." Then, after these things, the bishop passes each of them on nude to the elder who stands at the water. They shall stand in the water naked. A deacon, likewise, will go down with them into the water. When each of them to be baptized has gone down into the water, the one baptizing shall lay hands on each of them, asking, "Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?" And the one being baptized shall answer, "I believe." He shall then baptize each of them once, laying his hand upon each of their heads. Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead?" When each has answered, "I believe," he shall baptize a second time. Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?" Then each being baptized shall answer, "I believe." And thus let him baptize the third time.

Note that from the earlier creedal statement, we see the expansion of the description of Christ. This is adapted into the so-called Apostle’s creed, which we present below annotated so as to clarify its response to Gnosticism.

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth,

Gnostics taught that the material world is evil, and that God the Father did not make it.

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary,

Gnostics (and Docetists) denied that God had taken human nature or a human body. As stated, many believed the Christ-Spirit came upon the man Jesus at his baptism, and departed from him at the crucifixion, or that Jesus’ human form was an illusion. Against this denial of the Incarnation, the Church affirmed that Jesus was conceived through the action of the Holy Spirit, refuting the Gnostic claim that the Spirit had nothing to do with Jesus until His baptism, that he was born (i.e., he had a real physical body, and not just an appearance) of a virgin (which implied that he had been special from the first moment of his life, and not just from His baptism).

Suffered under Pontius Pilate,

Affirms that Jesus, in his deity, suffered—he was no whisked away leaving just a human shell to suffer. Recall that Docetic literature such as the Gospel of Peter denied that Jesus as God suffered.

was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into Hades.

The explicit reference to dead and buried, and the descent into Hades (Hell), make it clear that the death of Jesus was not just a swoon or a coma, but death in every sense of the word.

The third day he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy catholic church,

Gnostics believed that the most important Christian doctrines were reserved for a select, intellectual elite. The creed affirms that the fullness of the Gospel was to be preached to the entire human race. Hence the term "catholic," or universal.

the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,

Gnostics denied that men needed redemption or forgiveness, but enlightenment. Ignorance was the only unpardonable sin. Some of them, believing the body to be a snare and delusion, led lives of great asceticism. Others, believing the body to be quite independent of the soul, held that it did not matter what the body did. They accordingly led libertine lives. Either way, the notion of forgiveness was alien to them.

the resurrection of the body,

The chief goal of the Gnostics was to shed the body, which was but a prison of the spiritual. Their goal was to return spiritually to the heavenly realm. They totally rejected any idea of the resurrection of the body.

and the life everlasting. AMEN

The Nature of the Threefold Revelation

Although the baptismal and doctrinal creeds did much to combat Gnosticism, there still remained the difficult question of the exact nature of the relationship among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This complex issue resulted in additional heresy.

Monarchianism

Monarchianism had a noble goal: addressing the criticism that Christians were tritheists, that is they worshipped three gods. (Today, many non-Christians including Jews, and even some who call themselves Christians, still view orthodox Christianity’s claim of monotheism as being patently absurd.) The various schools of thought know as Monarchianism taught that Jesus and the Spirit were but emanations from God, or that they were merely different forms in which the Father chose to manifest himself from time to time.

One Monarchian school was Dynamism. Christ, according to the Dynamists, was a faculty, feature, or emanation of God, like the rays of the sun or a stream from a fountain. The bottom line: the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are but a single Person. One of the leading proponents of Dynamism was the scandalous Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, whom we met earlier (Lesson 11). In 268, the Church condemned him as a heretic. He was accused of acquiring great wealth by illicit means, of showing haughtiness and worldliness, of having set up for himself a lofty pulpit in the church, and of insulting those who did not applaud him and wave their handkerchiefs, of admitting women to live in his house, and had permitted the same to his clergy.)

Ironically, this Paul, a heretic, is noteworthy for introducing into the theology of the trinity the Greek adjective homoousios (of the same substance) which will be important in the orthodox formulation.

Dynamism was usually coupled with Adoptionism, which taught that Jesus the man was promoted to the rank of Son of God because of his perfect obedience. This heresy makes its way into classic literature, when Milton, in Paradise Regained, puts these words into the mouth of the Father:

This perfect Man, by merit call'd your Son.

A more popular school of Monarchianism was called Sabellianism (after Sabellius, priest of Northern Africa, ~215) or Modalism. According to this school, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simply three roles played by God. The Sabellianists do not deny, for example, the Apostle’s creed, for it describes the three manifestations of God while saying nothing of His inner being.

The Sabellianists were also called Patripassians, (pater –father, passio –suffering) for their doctrine implied that the Father and the Son are essentially the same person, and so the father suffered on the cross. The Sabellianists, according to Tertullian, “drove out prophecy and brought in heresy, expelled the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) and crucified the Father.”

In the same way that Marcion stimulated the church begin formalizing the canon, Monarchianism forced the church to examine the scriptures to formulate the correct view of the triune God. In particular, Sabellianism (Modalism), while not completely unattractive, was simply incompatible with scripture that spoke of the Father sending the Son, or the Father and Son sending the Holy Spirit, or the Son praying to the Father, etc.

that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (John 5:23)

that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. (John 17:21)

And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" (Gal. 4:6)

¹⁶I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever– ¹⁷the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17)

But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (John 16:7)

The problem, then and now, is summarized succinctly by F. F. Bruce: Our conception of God must fall short of His real being, and our language about him must fall short of our conception.

In defining an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, it has proved extremely difficult to find the right terms that avoid error in the two extremes: Modalism, in which the Father, Son, and Spirit are just three ways that God alternately reveals himself, or tritheism, in which the three are so distinct as to constitute three different gods.

It must be established that, axiomatically, Christianity, and the New Testament, affirms monotheism as ardently as Judaism. Whatever else we may, as Christians, say about the nature of God, we solidly affirm that He is One. As Christians, we agree with the Jewish creed of Maimonides that states:

I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is a Unity, and that there is no unity in any manner like unto His, and that He alone isour God who was, is, and will be.

But, unlike Jews, we do not see the unity of God as a monolithic unity. As the early theologians struggled to find ways to express this, we must remember that they were not merely waxing philosophical, but trying to find expression that did justice to revelation and experience. God had revealed Himself, and had been experienced, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and in His word. God did not, as the Adoptionists taught, wait around until a man of Jesus’ stellar character arrived; God took the initiative in sending the Son.

Among the church fathers, Hippolytus was forceful in his attack on the Roman bishops (popes) Zephyrinus (202-217) and Callistus (217-222) in what he regarded as their complicity in the spread of Sabellianism, although it must be added that Callistus eventually excommunicated Sabellius.

It was, however, Tertullian who provided the greatest service in developing the terms that began to express what Christians believed but couldn’t say.

It is to Tertullian to whom we owe the word “Trinity”, and also the language of one substance in three persons. And though we still use the words substance and persons in describing the trinity, they do not mean exactly what they meant for Tertullian, and so in some ways our expression of the Trinity suffers somewhat.

For Tertullian, the Latin word persona denoted one who played a part or performed a function in society. Tertullian adopted the word to theology, and spoke of three persona in the indivisible Godhead. Today, the word means more that it did to Tertullian, essentially meaning “persons”, but three persons is closer to a tritheist view that we really want to go.

Likewise, when Tertullian used the word substance (Latin substantia) we again have a problem. Tertullian did not mean it as we do today; for us the word substance is inextricably tied to materiality. We view "of one substance" as meaning "made out of the same stuff." Tertullian would have meant something closer to the modern meaning of "essence" rather than substance. For Tertullian and other third century theologians:

God is one Being, eternally existing the threefold relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; each of these three is "the one God, thinking, willing and acting, in one of His three eternal spheres of thought, volition and activity… the indivisible Godhead subsisting and operating in one of the essential relations of His Tripersonal life." (H.B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church)

Origen of Alexandria, probably the church's greatest thinker and scholar of the first three centuries, also struggled with the doctrine of the Trinity. In Origen's reaction to Monarchianism, he went too far. He thought that the Father, Son, and Spirit occupied a hierarchical position within the unity of the Godhead. The Son was subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son. He even taught that the Son was a creature, not in the sense that he was a created being but that the Son's being was derived from the Father's and is subject to His will. (He was not, however, an Arian—a heresy of the following [fourth] century that denied the divinity of Christ, which we will discuss later.)

The third century did not end (if indeed it ever has ended) the debate on the doctrine of God’s inner being. The next big advancement would come with the Arian controversy.

Church History Lesson 14 (Early Christian Heresies)

Note: I taught a Sunday School on Church History in 2004 in New Hampshire. Starting in February I'll be teaching the same course here in Virginia. So any posts, including the one below, and especially for the first half of the series, are more or less repeats.

Church History Lesson 1 (Introduction)
Church History Lesson 2 (Time is Ripe: Part 1)
Church History Lesson 2 (Time is Ripe: Part 2)
Church History Lesson 3 (The Start of The Church)
Church History Lesson 4 (The Life of Jesus)
Church History Lesson 5 (The New Community)
Church History Lesson 6 (The Church at Antioch)
Church History Lesson 7 (The First Council)
Church History Lesson 8 (Paul's Second Missionary Journey)
Church History Lesson 9 (The End of the Apostolic Age)
Church History Lesson 10 (Those Crazy 60s!)
Church History Lesson 11 (The Next 200 Years)
Church History Lesson 12 (Worship in the Early Church)
Church History Lesson 13 (New Testament Writings)

(Note: generously adopting and lifting from F. F. Bruce's fantastic book: The Spreading Flame.)

---

Early Christian Heresies

Docetism

Before the end of the first century, indeed before John wrote his gospel, the Greek belief that matter was inherently evil manifested itself in an early heresy. The name of one of the earliest being docetism, from the Greek dokein, which means "to seem." It was especially a problem in the region of Asia Minor.

There were variants, but the common theme was a denial that the Son of God really became a man and really died. The incarnation, according to Docetic thought, was an illusion. John goes out of his way to address this heresy (attesting to its early appearance) and to affirm the humanity and death of Christ. In his gospel he wrote:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

Christ did not assume "the appearance" of flesh, but actual flesh. He also wrote:

But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. (John 19:34)

Which emphasizes that Christ died in the flesh. John also addresses Docetism in his epistles:

this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God (1 John 4:2)

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 7)

One school of Docetism followed Cerinthus, a contemporary of John. Cerinthus taught that the Christ-Spirit came upon the man Jesus at his baptism, and left him at the crucifixion. According the Docetic Gospel of Peter:

¹⁰ And they brought two malefactors, and crucified the ¹¹ Lord between them. But he kept silence, as one feeling no pain. And when they set the cross upright, they wrote ¹² thereon: This is the King of Israel. And they laid his garments before him, and divided them among themselves and ¹³ cast the lot upon them. But one of those malefactors reproached them, saying: We have thus suffered for the evils which we have done; but this man which hath become the ¹⁴ savior of men, wherein hath he injured you? And they were wroth with him, and commanded that his legs should not be broken, that so he might die in torment. ¹⁵ Now it was noonday, and darkness prevailed over all Judea: and they were troubled and in an agony lest the sun should have set, for that he yet lived: for it is written for them that the sun should not set upon him that hath been ¹⁶ slain (murdered). And one of them said: Give ye him to drink gall with vinegar: and they mingled it and gave him ¹⁷ to drink: and they fulfilled all things and accomplished ¹⁸ their sins upon their own heads. And many went about with ¹⁹ lamps, supposing that it was night: and some fell. And the Lord cried out aloud saying: My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me. And when he had so said, he was taken up. (The Gospel of Peter)

F. F. Bruce comments:

The docetic note in this narrative appears in the statement that Jesus, while being crucified, 'remained silent, as though he felt no pain', and in the account of his death. It carefully avoids saying that he died, preferring to say that he 'was taken up', as though he - or at least his soul or spiritual self - was 'assumed' direct from the cross to the presence of God. Then the cry of dereliction is reproduced in a form which suggests that, at that moment, his divine power left the bodily shell in which it had taken up temporary residence.

Other tidbits about the Gospel of Peter: It is quite anti-Semitic, and completely whitewashes the complicity of Pilate, attributing culpability to Herod Antipas.

Another form of Docetism taught that Jesus' humanity was of a "phantom" nature, and that those who crucified him were deceived. Jerome (~340-420) would later write:

While the apostles were still surviving, while Christ's blood was still fresh in Judea, the Lord's body was asserted to be but a phantasm. (adv. Lucif. 23)

Finally, there was also a school that taught that it was Simon of Cyrene who was crucified while Jesus looked on from a place of safety.

Docetism is even found in the Koran's teaching on Jesus:

And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him. (Koran 4:157)

Gnosticism

Gnosticism is another early Christian heresy, and in fact the most dangerous, but its roots are much older (and new research keeps pushing back the origins.) Gnosticism is best described as a mythology that collided with Christianity and then absorbed some of its features and attempted to carry the mantle forward.

Perhaps the origins can be stated thusly: There was, even before the Christian era, a mythological belief regarding the structure of the universe, or cosmology. This view, in addition to corrupting early Christian thought, bifurcates into Astrology and the quasi-scientific astronomy of the second century astronomer Ptolemy. The former line continued the Gnostic way of thought, alive and well today as "New Age" thinking, while the latter ultimately lead to true Astronomy.

This early, pre-Christian cosmology taught that the universe was comprised of clear, hard, earth-centered concentric spheres. Each planet had its on sphere upon the surface of which it was constrained to move, and beyond these was the sphere of the “fixed” stars. Beyond the sphere of the stars lay the realm of the supreme god.

Each of these astronomical objects was the spirit ruler of its particular sphere. In scientific terms, this represented an advancement over earlier cosmologies that, for example, viewed the earth as the floor of a giant tent.

The theology associated with the cosmology held that the lords of the spheres served as intermediaries between god and man, and that the supreme god could have no direct contact with man.

This new way of thinking was given the name gnosis, from the Greek word for knowledge. However gnosis was used in a more substantive way—much like we sometimes use Science instead of science—as in "Science tells us."

Those who possess gnosis were called Gnostics. When Christianity arose, they attempted to shoehorn its beliefs into their schema. There were many sects of Gnosticism, and they despised one another as much as they hated the orthodox. In general, however, they agreed that garden-variety orthodox Christianity was for the unenlightened, and only they, the intellectual elite, could attain the truth.

The material world was the mistaken creation of a demiurge, not the supreme god. The supreme god had created and intended only a spiritual world. So to Gnostics, unlike Christians, the earth is not of divine creation, but the mishap of a far lesser being. Some Gnostic sects identified this demiurge with the God of Israel, which brings to mind the teachings of Marcion that we discussed last week.

However, since the creation was the work of a (flawed) spiritual being, there are still bits and pieces of the spirit realm sprinkled here and there, trapped in the flesh. The Fall, to the Gnostics, was the fall of this divine element into the material realm. Our spirits are "asleep" in our bodies, and Christ is the spiritual messenger who has come to reawaken our true nature. Gnostic salvation is not merely individual redemption of each human soul, but more of a cosmic process. It is the return of all things to what they were before an error (on the part of a lesser god) brought matter into existence.

The Gnostics and Docetists had much in common, including their disdain for the material. But the Gnostics went much, much farther, for they believed that gnosis lead to salvation. In other words, they possessed a special, secret knowledge, reserved for the enlightened, and that knowledge was the key to salvation.

Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the one obtains salvation by obedience of mind and will to the God, i.e. by faith and works, (in Christianity, of course, by faith alone through grace alone) it is Gnosticism that uniquely ties salvation to the possession of knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulas indicative of that knowledge.

What the Gnostics borrowed from Christianity was a bastardized notion of redemption. Christ was the redeemer, but not by His blood. Instead the Gnostic Jesus descended the lower world (earth) in order to release the divine element that had become imprisoned in the flesh, and to lead it back to its true home.

Gnosticism lacks the idea of atonement. There is no sin to be atoned for, except ignorance, which in Gnosticism is the equivalent of the unforgivable sin. Nor did Christ in any sense benefit the human race by his sufferings. Nor does he immediately and actively affect any individual human by the power of grace. He was a teacher, he once brought into the world the truth, the knowledge of which alone can save.

Many Gnostics did not claim to be Christians, only those that proclaimed Jesus as the spiritual messenger come to reawaken the essence trapped within the flesh. Some sects proclaimed other redeemers, including one branch prevalent among the Samaritans that proclaimed Simon Magus (Simon the magician of Acts 8) as the redeemer. Thus many afford Simon the dishonor of being the first Christian heretic (for this Simon, according to scripture, believed and was baptized.)

However, even the Christian Gnostics are, in fact, pantheists. Well they recognize that one god is the supreme god, there is a whole zoo of other lesser gods, at least in most Gnostic theologies. The least pantheistic Gnostics are the dualistic Marcionists, which we'll discuss in a moment.

To Gnostics, a human being is really an eternal spirit, or part of a spirit, that became trapped inside a body. Since the body is a prison, it is necessarily evil, therefore the ultimate goal of the Gnostic is to escape the body and the material world, and to reunite with the spiritual.

Since the flesh is evil, the Gnostics reject the humanity of Christ. They may have allowed that Jesus had a body, but it was not human body, but a spiritual body masquerading as physical. Naturally they also reject the birth of Christ, for this would imply an unimaginable defilement of the spiritual within a womb of flesh. (One could attribute a slight Gnostic flavor to the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, insomuch as it is supported by the notion that Christ could not be placed in a sinful womb.)

Many Gnostics held to the concept of an "elect." Not all humans contained remnants of their spiritual creator—some were fully carnal. Thus only some humans were destined for enlightenment, while others were slated for destruction when the material world ceased.

So how should the present life, then, be lived? The bulk of the Gnostics argued that since the body is inherently evil, all its urges and lusts must be fought against. Hence, a common expression of the Gnostic lifestyle was an extreme form of self-denial or asceticism. On the other hand, a minority of Gnostics believed that since the body was essentially irrelevant as far as the spirit is concerned, they were free to adopt an anything-goes libertine philosophy.

All Gnostic sects baptized. The formulae used by Christian Gnostics seem to have varied widely from that taught by Christ. The Marcosians said: "In the name of the unknown Father of all, in the Truth, the Mother of all, in him, who came down on Jesus.". The Elcesaites said: "In the name of the great and highest God and in the name of his Son, the great King". Elsewhere we find the formula: "In the name that was hidden from every divinity and lordship and truth, which [name] Jesus the Nazarene has put on in the regions of light".

Magic was important in Gnosticism (which explains the rise of Simon the Magician). For example, power is attributed to the utterance of the vowels: alpha, epsilon, eta, iota, omicron, upsilon, omega. The Savior and His disciples are said to have at times broken out in an interminable gibberish of only vowels. Gnostic magic spells have come down to us consisting of vowels. Probably each vowel represents one of the seven planets, and the seven together represent the Universe, but without consonants they represent the Ideal and Infinite not yet imprisoned and limited by matter.
How old is Christian Gnosticism? Well, scripture addresses both schools of Gnostic thought addressed above. To the Colossians, Paul writes:

⁸See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. ⁹For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. (Col. 2:8-10)

Here he addresses the nascent form of Christian Gnosticism, with a reference to elemental spirits, reminding the Colossians that the fullness of Christ's deity resides within the body of Christ, and that as Christians they have been filled with Christ, not sparks from the spiritual realm.

(Some translations use "basic principles" in place of "elemental spirits", but in any case the Greek word translated here was used to mean the gods of the stars and planets.) A little bit later, Paul really lays it on, also attacking the useless asceticism of the Gnostics:

¹⁸Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, ¹⁹and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. ²⁰If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations-- ²¹"Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" ²²(referring to things that all perish as they are used)--according to human precepts and teachings? ²³These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. (Col. 2:18-23)

In the epistle of Jude, the brother of James (and half-brother of Christ), the antinomian expression of Gnosticism is rebuked.

For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 4)

⁷just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. ⁸Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. (Jude 7:8)

Marcionism

In the middle of the second century, Marcion was clearly influenced by both Docetism and Gnosticism. He shared this with those earlier (and still thriving) heresies: an insistence that the material world is evil, a strict asceticism including a denouncing of marriage for himself and his followers, and the belief that a demiurge created the material world since the supreme god would not contaminate himself with the physical.

Marcionism's distinctive feature can be found in the profound reference that its founder, Marcion had for Paul. It has been said of Marcion: he was the only man in the post-apostolic world that understood Paul, and even he misunderstood him!

In particular he misinterpreted Paul’s teaching of the supremacy of the gospel over the law to mean that the Old Testament had no authority for Christians. Marcion's Docetism is evident in the very beginning of his rewritten gospel (of Luke) which begins:

In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, Jesus came down to Capernaum. (Marcion, The Gospel)

It was to be supposed that it was "down from heaven" from which the adult Jesus came.

Again, as we noted last time when discussing his unintended but beneficial effect on the formation of the canon, Marcion was perhaps the first to teach that the God of the Old Testament was not the same as the God of the New Testament. The God of the Old Testament was the Gnostic demiurge who created the material world. So in some ways Marcion was a minimalist Gnostic, having but two Gods, the righteous Jehovah (who created the world) and the "good" Father.

Amazingly, since its prohibition against marriage meant that it could not perpetuate itself, Marcionism survived as a rival church for many generations. In fact, the basic tenet of Marcionism, the repudiation of the Old Testament, manifests itself now and gain throughout Christian history.

Montanists

While the Gnostics over emphasized the intellectual, believing that special knowledge led to salvation, the Montanists, a movement of the second century, placed excessive importance on the experiential. It is debatable whether they should be described as heretical—but schismatic they certainly were.

We have already seen that prophets were a part of the apostolic church. The Montanists were the result of enthusiasm for prophets being taken to an exaggerated degree.

This reached a head in Asia Minor, which is to heresies what Virginia is to presidents, around A.D. 156. Montanus began teaching that while the dispensation of the Father had given way to the dispensation of the Son when Christ came, so now the dispensation of the Son is ending and the dispensation of the Spirit is beginning. He claimed that Christ's promise of the coming Paraclete (Holy Spirit) had been fulfilled, and that he, Montanus, was the Spirit's mouthpiece. Furthermore, this signaled the imminent return of Christ and the establishment of the New Jerusalem in one of the towns of Asia Minor. It has been said that this idea also recurs throughout history, "when the new wine of a new spiritual movement is too potent to be contained in the old wineskins of the established church." The features of Montanism may be summarized:

1. An emphasis on the Holy Spirit
   
2. A belief that the Holy Sprit was increasing manifested supernaturally through prophets and prophetesses
   
3. A stern and exacting standard of Christian morality
   
4. Rigorous fasts and penances for purity
   
5. A tendency to set up prophets against bishops
   
6. A belief that the second advent was near, and along with it an indifference to ordinary human affairs.

What distinguished Motanistic prophecy from other prophecy was that it was given in first person rather than third. There was no "Thus saith the Lord," but rather "possessed by God" utterances such as Montanus's "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete." He also prophesied: "I am the Lord God omnipotent, who have descended into to man", and "neither an angel, nor an ambassador, but I, the Lord, the Father, am come"

By the end of the second century, the movement reached Africa, and there it attracted its greatest convert: Tertullian, probably attracted by its stern Puritanism.

According to the Catholic Encylopedia:

But Tertullian is the most famous of the Montanists. He was born about 150-5, and became a Christian about 190-5. His excessive nature led him to adopt the Montanist teaching as soon as he knew it (about 202-3). His writings from this date onwards grow more and more bitter against the Catholic Church, from which he definitively broke away about 207. He died about 223, or not much later. His first Montanist work was a defense of the new prophecy in six books, "De Ecstasi", written probably in Greek; he added a seventh book in reply to Apollonius. The work is lost, but a sentence preserved by Prædestinatus (xxvi) is important: "In this alone we differ, in that we do not receive second marriage, and that we do not refuse the prophecy of Montanus concerning the future judgment." In fact Tertullian holds as an absolute law the recommendations of Montanus to eschew second marriages and flight from persecution. He denies the possibility of forgiveness of sins by the Church; he insists upon the newly ordained fasts and abstinences… the Catholic Church consists of gluttons and adulterers, who hate to fast and love to remarry.

A Montanist sect called the Tertullianists lasted in Northern Africa until the fifth century, and Montanism, in Asia Minor lasted until the sixth.