Who has not been exposed to or may be even involved in discussions of controversial topics these days?

It seems that talk of politics, race, religion, and a whole host of other controversial topics are swirling around us everywhere we go. Some topics we can ignore and avoid, and others we get sucked into. Some discussions we get reluctantly and others we get into too eagerly. There are numerous pitfalls to having these discussions that we all want to avoid, so today I want to offer eight tips for discussing controversial topics that will hopefully help your discussions be more productive and respectful. Being that the USA is in an election year (2020), politics seems to be on everyone's mind, so let's start with this quote from a book that I reviewed a few years ago entitled "Before You Hit SEND: Avoiding Headache and Heartache" by Emerson Eggerichs to set the stage:

"Some people enter politics because they derive personal fulfillment from the 'gotcha' approach to issues. It isn't about what is true but about the political chess game. The key is to put a better spin on a matter than the other candidate and to put the opposition in checkmate...In political circles the rule of thumb is never admit a mistake or that you don't know something. Thus, keep talking in an interview to sound like an expert, all the while aware that you don't know. Feeling on the hot seat, and determined never to be wrong, but fully cognizant that the information is insufficient or incorrect, keep moving your lips, weaving and ducking as best as your polemical skills permit."

If this sounds all too familiar to you and you're tired of it, keep on reading!

Is religion the practice of avoiding truth? Is it a willful delusion? Is it blind faith? The naturalist must tread carefully if they wish to ask such questions.

Introduction

A month or so ago, I came across an interesting challenge to Christianity. A skeptic told me that religion was an exercise in avoiding truth- a willful delusion. He observed that many Christians (and religious people, in general) tend to believe the claims of their "holy" books over what has been discovered about nature, history, or the very nature of reality. He noticed that many religious people have a precommitment to a particular understanding of the world and no amount of evidence provided will persuade them otherwise. He, as an intellectual, does not want to make this same mistake. In this post, I want to explore the possibility that he is making the same mistake based upon the philosophical foundations of the claim he makes for rejecting religion, and Christianity specifically.

Book Review: "The Bible Among The Myths" by John N. Oswalt

Introduction

It is quite common to hear or see people include the Bible as just another piece of ancient near east mythology that may be rejected as having no applicability to reality. John Oswalt decided to investigate this claim and address it directly in his book The Bible Among The Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? (Kindle, softcover, promo video). This book comes to me by recommendation of several people, and the introduction alone sparked great excitement to dig in quickly and deeply. This review will be a chapter-by-chapter summary and will include some of my concluding thoughts.

Part 1: The Bible and Myth

Chapter 1: The Bible In Its World

Oswalt begins by providing the historical context. He takes the reader quickly through Greek philosophy, which was based on the idea that something cannot be and not be at the same time (the law of non-contradiction). The Greek philosophers struggled (and lost) for acceptance of this radical idea in their culture. At roughly the same time the Hebrew idea of a single God, who created the universe, (an idea also unique among cultures of the time) was under attack in the mind of the very people who carried the tradition because of the rising military powers, which affirmed contradicting theologies, that eventually overtook the nature of Israel. However, this "set the stage" for Jesus Christ to come on the scene and bring these two culturally independent yet correct understandings of reality together into one consistent worldview that is now known as "Christianity." A single God, who created the universe, is the metaphysical foundation for the law of non-contradiction that his creation (and the rest of reality, for that matter) adheres to. The Christian worldview was necessary for logic and science to fully develop and fully function (seemingly) independently.

Over the past five weeks we have been looking at man from the perspective of different worldviews. The focus has been on man's problem and the proposed solutions to the problem (the introduction post can be found here). Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism all offer what they believe to be the problem of man, and each provide an antidote. We saw that some fail on the idea of what the problem is, while others fail based on the solution prescribed. Last week we looked at the problem that Judaism posits for man. The problem seems correct, but the solution provided did not seem viable. This week we will conclude the series by looking at Christianity and its claims about man's problem and solution.

What's Your Problem?
Christianity states that the original state of man is moral perfection. A state in which man can have a relationship with a morally perfect Being- God. The problem proposed by Christianity is that man is morally corrupted- this is sin (the source of pride and unholiness), which separates man from God. Christianity points to its holy Scriptures to obtain this doctrine, and to history of man's behaviors and actions as evidence that man is, in fact, morally corrupt.

This is the fifth part of a series of posts that examine different worldviews' teachings about man's problem and solution to that problem. The introduction post may be found here.

Last week we looked at what Islam proposes as man purpose in life. This week we will look at Judaism.

What's Your Problem?
According to Judaism, man is not suffering from cosmic amnesia; he is not by default morally imperfect (man is capable of both good and evil, but does not lean one way or the other), nor is he unenlightened. Judaism holds that man is simply separated from God and should come back to God. As with Islam, I will not argue against this being a problem of man (once again, though, I would argue it is part of a much larger problem, which I will get to next week), so I have no problem granting that this problem is reflected by reality.

What's Your Problem?- Part 4: Islam

This is the fourth part of a series of posts that examine different worldviews' teachings about man's problem and solution to that problem. The introduction post may be found here.

Last week we investigated Buddhism and its claims about man's problem. This week we look at Islam's view of man's problem.

What's Your Problem?
Islam holds that the problem with man is over-confidence in himself. It is obvious that man is not perfect, even though he may pridefully think that he is. I am not going to argue that this is not a problem of humanity (because I believe that it is- but comes from another source- I'll argue this later), so I can't really deny that this problem is grounded in reality.

This is the third part of a series of posts that examine different worldviews' teachings about man's problem and solution to that problem. The introduction post may be found here.

Last week we looked at man's problem proposed by Hinduism and the four prescribed solutions. This week we will investigate the claims of Buddhism.

What's Your Problem?
The perfect condition of man, as proposed by Buddhism, is enlightenment*- the lack of life, which is suffering. The antidote to rid one of suffering is that a person must eliminate craving and desire. The proposed way of doing this is to have right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration (this is called the Nobel Eight-Fold Path).

Is it possible for man to follow the Eight-Fold Path to the point of extinguishing desire? Does the problem and proposed solution have any merit in reality?

Last week we started looking at humanity's problem. We established the possibility that a problem does exist, but left the identity of the specific problem open. This week we will begin looking at a few different proposed problems and solutions. The problem from the Hindu worldview is first.

Hinduism is a pantheistic worldview. That means that everyone and everything is God, and God is everyone and everything. We are all the same essence as each other and as God. The foundation of the problem proposed by Hinduism is that man is suffering from a type of self-induced and self-perpetuated amnesia- in which we have forgotten our "Godness". We no longer understand that everyone and everything is God, and God is everyone and everything- including ourselves. The official problem that man suffers from is a cycle of life, death, and reincarnation called Samsara, that is the result of the "amnesia".

Most worldviews hold that there is something wrong with man- a problem. Man used to be in one perfect condition but is not now. The belief systems of the world provide prescriptions to get man back to the original/perfect state. Different worldviews believe that different things are wrong with man, so each will provide a different antidote. In this short series I want to look at a few of the proposed problems to see which one seems to fit best with humanity as we know it and see if the problem can be rectified by the respective worldview.

A Problem Requires A Purpose
First, though, I want to address the idea that there is no real problem with man- we must not just assume this. The concept of a "problem" is dependent upon humanity having a purpose. A "problem" would be a state in which man is unable to fulfill his purpose. If man has no purpose, then no state exists in which he would not be able to fulfill his purpose. Hence, if there is not purpose for humanity, humanity cannot be in a problematic state. Further, any worldview that holds that humanity has no purpose also holds that there is nothing "wrong" with the state of humanity. But, is this view correct?

Religious Propaganda

The other day I heard a fellow Christian complain that atheists are constantly complaining that Christians try to "force their beliefs on people". The Christian complained that the atheist has no right to complain because he is doing the exact same thing. This caught my ear for a few reasons.

First, that critique cuts in all directions. Any person who believes that they teach the truth will automatically see a person who differs with them and teaches those differing views with just as much passion as a threat to their beliefs being accepted. People do tend to use propagandistic language when describing the teaching of beliefs that they do not agree with. Christians tend to think that public education is forcing atheist and relativist propaganda on our kids. Atheists and relativists believe that we are forcing our propaganda on their kids. Christians should not be complaining about others behaving in the same way that we do. I'm pretty sure that such hypocrisy turns people away from the Church- not because they think that Christianity is false, but because its adherents don't practice what it teaches.

The Illustrated World's Religions: A Guide to Our Wisdom Traditions
By Houston Smith.

This book was given to me by a friend a couple months ago. I had other books ready to read, but I decided to put this one ahead of the others because I had heard that Houston Smith was the "go to" guy about the world's religions. A few different versions of this book have been published; this one is the illustrated one. It includes a lot of art inspired by the different religions and contains many photos of adherents "in action".