Science in Christian Perspective
FROM DEISM TO DEICIDE:
WHY GOD "DIED."
EDWARD P. COLESON*
From: JASA 20 (December 1968): 114-117, 128.
The recent "God is dead" controversy has stirred a good many people
who have not gotten excited about theology for a long, long time. Yet
anyone who
has watched the trends over the years can hardly be amazed at this development.
This is but the logical conclusion of centuries of philosophical
"evolution,"
the ultimate destination of a course that the scholarly world has been pursuing
for many a year. In fact, one wonders why people are so excited over
the "death"
of a God who long ago became almost irrelevant to Western man. Let us
truce this
transition from the "Age of Faith" to the present hour. Perhaps as an
introduction to this discussion, it would help to focus our thinking
on the issues
involved if we would consider the sort of "death notice"
for the morning
papers which would be appropriate in this ease-if we may speak of God
thus without
being blasphemous or even irreverent. Such a news item might read as
follows:
The tragic and seemingly sodden passing of the Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth,
has been a distinct shock to a multitude of people beyond the immediate circle
of friends. Yet those who insist that they are most intimately acquainted
with the inner workings of Universe Incorporated claim that the Founder of the
firm had not taken an active part in the business for a long time now. It seems
that the junior partner, Homo Sapiens, has pretty well managed the company in
recent years, with the Creator and former Manager becoming
increasingly less active.
They assure us that there is no reason to believe that the demise of the Most
High will make any difference whatsoever in the practical affairs of
the organization;
in other words, business as usual. Many people are relieved to know this. Still
they feel a deep sense of personal loss in the passing of the Deceased-One they
have known at least casually since the days they repeated "Now I
lay me down
to sleep" at their mothers' knee. This newspaper, The Cosmic
Courier, wishes
to express its profound sympathy to the bereaved in this hour of
great loss.
Justifiable Deicide?
The above bit of fantasy may seem to border on the sacreligious, but I trust it
will shock us into seeing the present situation for what it is: there have been
few, even among the devout, in recent years who have appealed to their Lord and
His Book as the ultimate Authority on any practical question
whatever. The Bible
is simply a devotional manual, according to present day thinking. The Communist
may say, "It is written in Marx" or "Lenin dixit," but "Thus
saith the Lord" is obsolete even among professed Christians.
While many good
people resent the blatant arrogance of the "God-is-dead" theologians,
their resentment seems to arise from their feeling that this is in bad taste, rather than the
conviction that God makes any particular difference in the practical affairs of
life. Furthermore, modern man's detached view of his Creator is not the work of
this new crop of heretics:
shortly after World War II
a survey, reported by Reader's Digest,1 found that while most Americans
believe
in a Supreme Being, few
insist that they believe could see any connection problems between their faith
and lving in the present world. The student,2 of a few years ago, one of the "unsilent generation"
who thought he could afford to be "indifferent to an indifferent
god,"
was very much a product of his age. God has simply become irrelevant
in the contemporary
world, or so a multitude of people-both pious and impious-seem to think.
Modern man's casual attitude with respect to his Creator contrasts
strangely with
the profound convictions of our Puritan ancestors,' as is evident
from the following
brief quotation:
The Puritan was a Scripturist, a Scripturist with all of his heart. .
. He cherished
the scheme of looking to the Word of God as his sole and universal directory.
The Word had been
but lately made the common property . The Puritan
searched the Bible, not only for principles and rules, but for
mandates-and, when
he could find none of these, for analogies -to guide him in precise
arrangements
of public administration, and in the minutest points of individual conduct.
Now while I am very willing to allow that the Puritans were carried
away by their
enthusiasm and tried to read too much into Scripture, are we
justified ill going
to the opposite extreme of seeing nothing there, except of such a
heavenly nature
that it has no earthly application? It is well to remember that God was irrelevant
in the eyes of modern man long before He "died." I might
mention parenthetically
that I am quite weary of the continuing tendency of our time to downgrade our
Puritan heritage. There may have been self-righteous Pharisees among them, this
I will concede. But by a reversal of the ancient pattern today's 11 publicans
and sinners" are thankful they are not Pharisees! Is this any
improvement?
God's Law in Human History
The Puritan appeal to God as the Ultimate Authority was in no sense unique or
even new in human history. Back in the classic Creek period Antigone4
could remind
a tyrant:
Thy writ, O king,
Hath not such potcnce as will overweigh.
The Laws of God . . . fixed
From everlasting to eternity.
The concept of a Higher Law, given by the Supreme Lawgiver Himself,
is of course
basic to the whole of Hebrew history also and long before the Golden
Age of Greece.
Unlike the usual oriental despots the kings of the Chosen People were
constitutional
monarchs, "tinder God and under the Law", as Henry de Braeton so well
expressed it in thirteenth century England. But the early Jews were
not philosophers:
the Creek Stoics elaborated the doctrine of a Higher Law and Cicero appealed to
the Law of God as a sure foundation as the Roman Republic was breaking up about
him. In the centuries which followed Christian thinkers, such as St. Augustine
and St. Thomas, took up the theme. So it has always been: much as Caesar had his Brutus and Charles I his Cromwell,
so in a constructive way David had his Nathan, Ahab his Elijah, and Mary Queen
of Scots her John Knox. The best defense against tyrants down across the ages
has been the appeal to a Higher Power. It would surely have helped if
more Germans
had continually reminded Hitler: "Gott ist mein Fiihrerl" We in the
democracies also need this
the voice of the people
steadying influence for is not the voice of God.
Perhaps the classic expression of the doctrine of a Higher Law is to be found
in William Blackstone's Commentary, published in 1765. The American colonists
seized upon this work with the greatest enthusiasm, finding in it an antidote
for the tyranny of George III. A decade later on the eve of the
American Revolution
Edmund Burke could assure Parliament that there were "nearly as
many of Blacekstone's
Commentaries in America as in England." The following brief quotation will
serve to illustrate Blackstone's5 approach to the problem of ultimate
authority:
This law of nature, . . . dictated by God Himself, is of course
superior in obligation
to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and
at all times:
no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are
valid derive all their force . . . from this original.
It should be immediately apparent to the reader that the notions of modern man
contrast strangely with the convictions of Blackstone and the Founding Fathers
of this nation. Walter Terence Stace6 well expressed the dominant philosophy of
our age in his "Science and Faith" a few years ago. He
reminds us that
all previous advanced cultures have believed that the "world is
a moral order,"
but then goes on to tell us that our contemporaries commonly hold the opposite
view. According to present day social scientists, he continues, moral Godes are
purely human arrangements-and one might add, like prices, are subject to change
without notice. Stace allows that this is why the foundations of
society are crumbling
and urges that we devise what might be called a scientific moral Gode to take
the place of our outmoded system of ethics which was founded upon religion. In
the light of a few thousand years of philosophical endeavor, one might well ask
what the chances of success would be for a moral "operation
bootstraps."
From Deism to Darwinism: God Becomes Unnecessary
Moses commanded Joshua when he came into the Promised Land to deploy the Twelve
Tribes on the twin mountain peaks of Ebal and Cerizim (Dent. Chap. 27 through
30), so that the people might make a dramatic and very definite choice between
good and evil: "Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and
a curse"
(Dent. 11:26). This is so different from present day thinking: we would gather
all the folks down in the valley between the two hills-the
"middle of-the-road"
position with no choice involved at all. At the Mountains of Blessing
and Cursing
the Hebrews made a contract with Jehovah to obey Him, with the
understanding that
disobedience would bring the direct consequences. This concept of a
Covenant between
God and His people survived through the Puritan epoch three hundred years ago.
It is interesting to note, as Scott Buchanan7 points out, that
"social contracts"
then "took the place of covenants with God." In this we are
moving toward
the French Revolution and the radical upheavals of the present era.
It is not easy to date the beginnings of our own decline and fall.
The late Richard
Weaver8 insisted that it was back in the fourteenth century when Western
man, like Macbeth, met the "witches on the heath." Those
who rate civilization
strictly in terms of horse power and gadgets may see no problem, but
when we recall
that we have seen atrocities in our own time that make the horrors of the dark
ages pale into insignificance, the dangers of the course we are
following become
apparent. Where then did we miss our way? The concept of a personal
God, concerned
and involved in the affairs of men and to whom men are accountable,
is often said
to have been a casualty of Newtonian physics with its mechanical
"world view."
If one dates the rise of Deism to the pronouncements of Lord Herbert9 in 1624,
Deism antedates Newton by more than a generation. In all fairness to
Isaac Newton,
it should be pointed out that he was devout and intended no disrespect to the
Divine Lawgiver of the universe in seeking to understand the laws of
motion basic
to celestial mechanics. Whatever Newton's intent, his physics had a
profound influence
on philosophy in the ensuing years and went far in depersonalizing
the universe.
This mechanical world became even more impersonal with the rise of
modern geology
about a century and a half ago, with Darwin's theory of evolution in
biology completing
the process a little later. Sir Charles Lyell,10 following James
Hutton, insisted
there had never been any great catastrophes such as a universal flood and was
most emphatic that whatever natural calamities there had been across the ages
were not divine judgments on sinful men. He said that ".
in a rude state of society, all great calamities are regarded by the people as
judgments of God on the wickedness of man." For instance,
"the submersion
of the island of Atlantis under the waters of the ocean, after repeated shocks
of an earthquake, . . . happened when Jupiter had seen the moral depravity of
the inhabitants." LyclI thus liberated his contemporaries from
what he considered
the primitive notion that God punishes men for their sins. Darwin, a
devoted disciple
of Lyell, went even further in decreeing that there could be no
meaning or purpose
in this universe of ours. To understand the impact of Darwin's denial
of purpose
one must remember that the early nineteenth century might well be
called the Age
of Paley. William Paley had seen evidence of immense design in our
world and had
argued that design presupposes an Infinite Designer. The scientists of his time
were caught up in this quest for proof that "all things work together for
good" in a creation harmoniously engineered by the Supreme
Architect of heaven
and earth. Darwin11
was most emphatic: he said his contemporaries "believe that many structures
have been created for the sake of
beauty, to delight man or the Creator . Such doctrines, if true, would he absolutely fatal to my theory." He
even discussed
the flowers and the birds, but decided that their beauty or the songs
of the birds
have no higher purpose or meaning than mere survival -a view
certainly less romantic
than Emerson's12"... if eyes were made for seeing, Then Beauty is its own excuse for
being." In conclusion, let us summarize the philosophical import of these
two centuries from Deism to Darwinism: the Creator was first relegated to the
position of absentee Landlord of His creation; it was later decided
that we could
also dispense with His services as First Cause and Designer of this universe as
well as Supreme Judge. God was no longer necessary.
Relativism and Ruin
The sequel of these two centuries of philosophical
"evolution" is most
fascinating and, of course, brings us down to the present hour. The
rigid, mechanical
legalism of the Deists with their devotion to the physical laws of the universe
soon gave way to the relativism of the modern period. Whatever the thinking of
Einstein and Heisenberg may mean to the physicist, they still build
bridges, battleships,
skyscrapers and jet planes according to traditional mechanical principles and
even launch Sputniks in terms of Newtonian physics. But in the realm of social
science the victory of relativism has been well neigh complete. Whole
academic disciplines
have been built on the assumption that there is no truth and there
are no abiding
principles, that God and His Word simply do not matter. "The proper study
of mankind" is legitimate but beset with many pitfalls.
While there has been considerable excitement at times over the last
century about
monkeys in cocanut trees, the larger implications of the modern
secular "world
view" have been almost completely overlooked by Christian
scholars including
the professors in our church-related colleges, presumably the last intellectual
strongholds of the faith; having been educated and "brainwashed" in
the state universities, our Christian teachers often fad to see the
conflict between
the academic disciplines they teach all week and the creeds they
profess on Sunday.
While I am out urging the abolition of secular learning, our
blindness is tragic.
As one of many possible examples, may I mention that one will search
in vain through
psychology and sociology books nearly as big as the Sears and Roebuck catalog
for one mention of the fact of sin. Surely, if these subjects claim
to be a study
of human behavior, this is more than a minor omission. Still the psychologists
and sociologists with their faulty view of man are in the forefront
of the secular
attempt to save the world. Furthermore, the triumph of this relativisitic, naturalistic,
pragmatic philosophy has been a landslide, overwhelming every area of
human thought
and endeavor. For instance, former Chief Justice Viston13 rendered
the decision
in 1951: "Nothing is more certain in modern society than the
principle that
there are no absolutes ... all concepts are relative"-in other
words, there
are no abiding principles, no eternal Truths that were true when the
Creator flung
the stars into space and will still be true when this world is on fire. We have
come a long way in the two centuries since Blackstone declared that the laws of
men should conform to the Higher Law, "dictated by God Himself." The
world has rejected God's Law and we have forgotten it. Those who would insist
that I have overstated my case need only recall Julian Huxley's'4 remark of a
few years ago:
The advance of natural science, logic and psychology has brought us to a stage
at which God is no longer a useful hypothesis . . a faint trace of
God still broods
over the world like the smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat. But the
growth of psychological
knowledge will rob even that from the universe.
We are living in the post-Christian era, we are told. Little wonder
that our civilization
is rapidly being reduced to chaos and mass liquidations of human
beings, created
in the image of God, have become a commonplace.
Faith in a Living God
Still this is no time for us to become discouraged, although I suspect things
may get worse, much worse, before they get better. Nevertheless, God is still
on the throne. Those who know their history cannot help but be aware how dark
the night has often been before the dawning of a new day of hope. Perhaps the
beginnings of a New Reformation are already upon us. One may wonder
if this "God-is-dead"
controversy may not yet work out for His glory in that it brings a
lot of issues
out into the open: it at long last helps us see where our philosophical paths
have been leading its over the last few centuries. Furthermore the bankruptcy
of modern man's efforts to save himself are becoming increasingly
apparent, most
obviously in the colossal failure of the godless gospel of salvation according
to Marx but no less so in other humanistic attempts to redeem mankind which may
not have been so blatantly and offensively anti-God, although their
basic assumptions
were very much the same. Man must see his own abysmal failure and
utter lostness
before he feels his need of God once more. This he is increasingly
aware of, although
he seems not even yet to see the appropriate remedy, perhaps because of our own
failure. Can it be if we could just turn the primitive Church, the
Church of Peter
and Paul, loose on our perverted world that they could turn it right
side up once
more? The Lord is still able-are we?
But we must realize that it will take much more than a little
religious excitement-a
revival in the very narrow sense as urgently as this is needed-to
meet the needs
of the world in this hour of global crisis. To those who would lament that we
are living in the "last days" and that all is lost, may I
say that our
task is to "occupy till He comes"; our defeatism tends to
bring defeat,
for thinking so helps to make it so. Many times before down across the ages an
insignificant minority with God's help have won the victory. It may yet be so.
The task today is enormous because man has totally
lost his way-spiritually, morally, intellectually. The
"Christian World View"
that Western man once took for granted has been shattered by several centuries
of atheistic philosophizing and even we who should have been a saving
leaven have
largely forgotten our own great heritage. We as evangelicals need desperately
to catch on our "homework "-there is a Christian point of view which
follows most logically from the creeds we profess, if we would but
take them seriously
enough to investigate the practical out-workings of our own beliefs.
Our own philosophical
failures have left an intellectual vacuum. Consequently the Church of
today, feeling
the urgent need to "get involved" once more, is seriously lacking any
sense of direction.
Fortunately, present conditions seem to favor a renaissance of
Christian thinking
in every dimension of life. The failures of the arrogant attempts of
men to dispense
with God and His Word, and to work out their own salvation without the help of
a Higher Power, are multiplying. A number could be cited but two must suffice
because of space. One is the dramatic collapse' of Wellhausen's
"higher criticism,"
once the standard and "orthodox" view of the liberal theologian. For
this heartwarming story see Herman Wouk's15 This is My God. Wouk is Jewish and,
of course, would not agree with me on several points of theology but his book
makes fascinating reading, particularly the brief section on Wellhausen. Another
development that is of interest is a rebirth of concern for that
Higher Law, "dictated
by God Himself." There is a growing literature in this field. As I write
I have before me a legal work, The Natural Law Reader, edited by
Brendan F. Brown,16
a professor of law. He tells us on the dust jacket of the book: "Today a
great resurgence of natural law thinking is taking place throughout the world,
largely due to the frightful consequences of its rejection in Nazi
and Communist
countries." These and other encouraging signs may be only a
cloud the "size
of a man's hand," but I see in them great promise, if we will
clear our minds
and let our hearts be "strangely warmed" like Wesley before he went
out to preach a message that saved England and the world in another dark hour
in human history. God lives and is still able to meet our need in this hour of
global crisis.
FOOTNOTES:
1.Lincoln Barnett, "God and the American People," Reader's
Digest, (Jan., 1949), pp. 33-38.
2. Otto Butz, (editor), The UnSilent Generation, "Au Anonymous Symposium
in Which Eleven College Seniors Look at Themselves and Their World," (New
York: Rinehart and Co., 1958), p. 26.
3John Palfrey, History of New England," in Christian
History of the Constitution Vol. 1, compiled by Verna M. Hall (San Francisco:
American Christian Constitution Press, 1960), p. 48.
4. C. E. Robinson, Hellas, A Short History of Ancient Greece (Boston:
Beacon Press,
1948), p. 100.
5. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
Vol. I (Lewis's edition, 1902), p. 31; quoted also by Hall (op.
cit.), p. 142.
6. Walter Tercoco Staco, "Values as Natural, Objective and
Universal,"
in Crucial Issues in Education, edited by Ehlcrs and Lee (New York:
Holt-Dryden,
1959), pp. 163-167.
*Edward P. Coleson is at Spring Arbor College, Spring Arbor, Michigan