To My Professor (and Class)

By way of introduction, I am in a class at Kennesaw State University with a very liberal professor and a lot of students who take in the erosion of truth without much thought. I could use a lot of prayer. The following is a reflection that I posted on our website that everyone gets to read. I posted it after most of the students would have read, but my hope and prayer is that it would be a cause of deep thought for my professor. I know this will be hard to read, but I still believe some of you guys may appreciate it...
Additionally, outside of my official post, I wanted to remark on an interesting philosophical question that struck me as I was reading, though it is certainly peripheral to the main point of this chapter. The author uses evolution as the example for the different Entry Points. The last Entry Point is for Existential/Foundational and reads, "Consider questions about why species die out or what the purpose is for variation in species."

This really is a question of semantics, but I found the phrasing interesting in the second part of the question. I think, from a Darwinian perspective, it would be better to ask "the cause of" or "the reason for" variations in species. In other words, what characteristics or processes bring about these variations and how do they do it? Or perhaps the author is aiming at a description of what happens as a result of these variations. (This might be more of a question of usefulness - what are these variations used for as it happens to turn out.)

To ask, instead, as the author does, what is the purpose of these variations is very interesting. The way the question is phrased, perhaps consciously or unconsciously, presupposes a purpose to these variations, but to speak of purpose seems to be a contradiction to the very nature of evolution, which, if I understand it correctly, places emphasis on the random nature of the events happening. In other words, there is no purpose, there is only what happens, and it very well could have happened completely differently. (This recalls to mind our discussion of gender and sexual orientation.)

I do agree with the author that this is a legitimate question to ask and that it is properly an existential question. However, my understanding of science is that it is mainly a descriptive endeavor. It sees certain things happening in nature, and through experiment and observation it tries to describe, especially cause and effect relationships. So to answer a question, "Why does so and so happen?" we must appeal to some physical cause. Q always seems to happen after P happens. Therefore, we posit some cause and effect relationship between P and Q. And we may go beyond the bare statement of observation to ask why, but it is still really a question of physical description of cause and effect, perhaps just moved a level lower (to the atoms) or a step back in time.

Science, therefore, would seem to be a good (we hope) description of what exists, but would not necessarily answer the question of purpose - why those things exist. My main question coming out of this is, "Can you really, on any secular basis, ask a properly existential question of your classroom?" I, as you probably know implicitly from this post and more explicitly from others, do not hold a secular worldview. Therefore, I have no problem with this question - and I actually like it. However, I believe that public schools generally operate on a secular assumption, and the question, if left as is, does confuse me. Can I really ask this question of my students? And if I can, am I allowed to answer it? Or do I, as I fear might be the case, completely misunderstand what an existential question is?

To speak of some physical act or property having a purpose means that it is working to bring something about. Does the means intend to bring about its end, or does it just happen to do so? For example, I believe that you and I exist at this point in time on purpose, so everything preceding this moment in time helped to bring that about. If however, as I believe Darwin would argue, we did not necessarily have to exist, it would be linguistically sloppy to speak of the purpose of evolution. Its reality is more of a brute observable fact. And as my worldview would suggest, if there really is a purpose for anything - besides just the physical reality of things happening - there is a Giver of that purpose, someone or something who is in some sense in control of what is happening and can therefore properly be said to invest it with purpose.

Of course, there is plenty of disagreement over whether or not there really is purpose, and then if there is, where or from whom that purpose is derived. I would say that meaning is derived from Jesus Christ as creator because I have personally seen him as both intellectually credible and existentially satisfying. I say this at risk, I suppose, of being labeled and judged as being a judgmental labeler. But in the end I trust that this forum is safe for an exchange of ideas because of our valuation of tolerance, and I applaud and thank anyone for taking the time to slog through this mess of ideas.

I hope I have not offended anyone by use of the word secular here. I am learning that there are offensive ways to say things, many of which I did not previously know about, so perhaps I still have some things going on in my brain that need to be worded differently. Secular has been used here to refer to a naturalistic worldview that believes in looking for natural causes. In my understanding, a secular worldview needs to make no appeals to God.

I do not, however, make apology for every time I bring offense, though. I apologize, instead, for when I have written in a manner that is inconsiderate or when I have considered myself better than another. As someone looking for truth, when my mind is sufficiently convinced and my conscience bears witness to it, I cannot but believe it and when appropriate, express it. I hope to do so with the humility that comes from acknowledging that I am your fellow human being, but I know that my beliefs may be sometimes offensive. I am bothered by holding offensive beliefs, but not paralyzed by it because I do believe that the truth itself, like my beliefs, is sometimes offensive. "Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." (Flannery O'Connor)

This has been fun to write. I hope it has not been torture to read.