🦃Thanksgiving, Gratitude, And The Case For Christianity✝️

The very origin and existence of gratitude provide evidence of the truth of Christianity.

Introduction

Is it possible that gratitude points to the true worldview? I believe so; in fact, I believe that gratitude's origin, practice, and acceptance as true all help to eliminate certain worldviews and is strongly supported by another one. Everything from the origin of gratitude to its practice in everyday life points to the truth of the Christian worldview. Allow me to explain.

Origins and Survival of Gratitude

It is quite a challenge for gratitude to take hold in a culture of organisms that are fighting for the existential survival of the fittest among the individuals. Gratitude may be shown to another party in multiple ways, usually involving the giving of some resource, to the disadvantage of the grateful party. If the other party does not see value in the gratitude, they may respond by further reducing the grateful party's resources to the point of elimination of that party. Given simple survival-of-the-fittest naturalism, gratitude did not stand a chance to survive as a characteristic of the "fittest" of organisms. 

Gratitude, from a naturalistic evolutionary psychological point of view, does not have a chance to originate, must less survive. The fact that gratitude has survived and is commonly extended and accepted by parties today indicates that there were more than just naturalistic mechanisms involved in its origin and survival. If more than naturalism is required for gratitude, then naturalism (atheism) has been eliminated as a viable explanation for the world that we see and experience every day. I go into more detail on this in my post "Thanksgiving, Evolution, and Design."

Gratitude Requires Agency

In that post, I explain that gratitude requires two subjects: the one communicating gratitude and the one the gratitude is communicated to. Both of these subjects must be free agents capable of choosing to (or not to) extend and accept the gratitude. Naturalism does not have the resources for agents to truly exist- all "agents" in naturalism are ultimately just different configurations of deterministically controlled (no free choice at all) matter, thus all gratitude (extended or accepted) is robotic and not true or authentic. Ultimately, if naturalism is true, not only is the environment antagonistic for gratitude's origin (and survival), gratitude is not truly extended or accepted anyway.

The fact that we all know that we have a free choice to authentically extend gratitude and a free choice to authentically accept gratitude tells us that agents exist and that naturalism is, therefore, false. In his book "Agents Under Fire," philosopher of mind Dr. Angus Menuge goes into great detail about the current state of the debate over the existence of actual agents in reality and naturalists' attempts to explain their existence. See my review of the book here: Book Review: Agents Under Fire. Ultimately, naturalism only has room for imitations (no matter how sophisticated) of free will and thus it only has room for imitations (no matter how sophisticated) of gratitude.

The Morality of Gratitude

Most people would grant that it is better to be grateful than to not be grateful. This "better" judgement is not merely understood to be a judgement of practicality; it is understood to be a judgement of morality. There is a clear distinction between practicality and morality that people generally recognize, and gratitude (independent of a practicality judgement) is understood to have a "good" moral judgement. And this judgement is not just a subjective opinion about morality but an objective claim that is independent of how many people do claim or do believe it or do not claim or do not believe it.

If naturalism is true, then all morality reduces to practicality, and practicality and morality ultimately are not independent of or even distinct from one another. On naturalism, the "moral" status of a specific instance of offering gratitude is necessarily dependent upon its practical implications. Which means that if showing gratitude could result in negative effects on the one showing the gratitude (such as in gratitude's natural origins), then it is judged to be immoral. But most people understand that showing gratitude is never immoral. And since naturalism does not allow for such a judgement, naturalism is defeated on this third count.

But That's Not All!

Naturalism is not the only worldview defeated by these three tests of reality. Any worldview that denies the existence of free will and/or agents is defeated (this would include worldviews like atheism, Buddhism, deism, and some forms of theism that deny free will). Any worldview that does not allow for the distinction between practicality and morality is also defeated (this would include atheism, pantheism, panentheism, new age and other occultic worldviews). And the most sweeping test of the three: Any worldview that posits a naturalistic origin of human psychology is defeated (this would be all non-theistic worldviews). When taken together, every atheistic, pantheistic, deistic, and deterministic worldview is removed from the table of possibility by the existence of gratitude.

What Is Left?

Ultimately, Christianity is the only worldview that escapes all three of these severe tests. But it is not always enough to merely exercise the use of the process of elimination to arrive at the final answer. We need to positively identify Christianity as the correct worldview to explain the existence of true, authentic gratitude.

First, let's examine where we left off: the distinction between practicality and morality. Practicality is a judgement based upon something's ability to bring a purpose or goal closer to fruition. Something is said to be "good" if it brings the goal closer, and it is said to be "bad" or "evil" if it moves the goal further away. An example would be a "good" move in the game of Chess would bring the player closer to check-mating his or her opponent. The philosophical term for these is "teleology;" it is a judgement based upon a purpose. Morality (that is the philosophical term, by the way), on the other hand is a judgement of intrinsic right and wrong that is independent of teleological implications. For instance, it is morally good (right) to run into a burning house to save the life of a stranger's child even if it would result in the (practical) loss of our own life. Self-sacrifice is morally good despite its teleological wrongness.

However, without some objective standard by which to judge right and wrong, there is only subjective or relative opinion, which ultimately would lead to "might makes right." With Christianity, God is the standard by which moral judgments are made. This standard is independent of how many of whoever believes whichever way. If one society believes that murder is good and another believes that it is evil, the objective standard of God's nature allows us to know which society is right and which is wrong. This video from Reasonable Faith helps to explain morality:

Last year I came across an article about a study that empirically demonstrates seven benefits of gratitude. The problem for the atheist (or agnostic or skeptic) is that unless Christianity is true, gratitude is nothing more than a generally "useful fiction"- evolution has preserved those who embrace falsehood in order to survive not those who embrace truth. If your intellectual goal is to go beyond what simply works to what is true, then Christianity is the only worldview that makes sense of all the evidence, including the ability to make sense of evidence (philosopher Alvin Plantinga goes into great detail on this implication in his book "Where the Conflict Really Lies"). I like how Os Guiness explains the reality that we experience and how it relates to the truth of Christianity: 

Conclusion

Christianity is not true because gratitude works; gratitude works because Christianity is true. Gratitude merely reflects this reality. If you understand the value of gratitude, it is time to take your understanding of it beyond mere pragmatism to discover its foundation and why it works. As we move into the Christmas season it is the most appropriate time to investigate the evidence for the truth of Christianity. Start with investigating the linchpin of Christianity: the claim of the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here is a post that provides an overview of the evidence: Did the Historical Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? I encourage you to also follow the links contained in the post to dig deeper into the details of the evidence. 

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

The Scourge of Racism in America

The Scourge In America

With the murder of George Floyd, America is going through yet another devastating national event that has triggered emotions and violence rather than unity, comfort, and perseverance. Racial division and tribalism in America has long been perpetuated by those who stand to gain from America's division and unrest. As a result, so many Americans are tired of having their motives and hearts assumed to be evil because of the evil actions of a relatively few guilty people that happen to match their same physical description. It seems that this scourge has been on the rise in America. It is time that Americans come together to weep with those who weep and mourn with those who mourn while we reason a way through the current devastation and towards a reconciled and healed future. If we do not, this great nation will fall, and we have only ourselves and our pride to blame.

Should Public Schools Promote "In God We Trust"?

Introduction

"In God We Trust" has increasingly become a debated motto for Americans as the country becomes more secularized. However, in recent days, the State of South Dakota passed a law stating that all public schools must prominently display that motto on their campuses. Many will challenge the constitutionality and wisdom of such a law while others will debate the practicality of it (such as money to fund the creation of the displays). Neither of those is the focus of this post, though. Today, I want to discuss the reasonableness of an educational institution recognizing God's existence and its dependence on Him.

Many things that the educational system depends upon actually requires God to find its roots in reality. It is quite common for the distinction between knowing something and justifying something to be confused. We can know that something is true without being able to justify its being true. In philosophy, this is known as the distinction between ontology (what is true) and epistemology (how we know what is true). People can know things to be true, and even act properly according to that knowledge, yet not hold a worldview that can justify its being true (this will be explained more, in the section on morality below). Many of the things that are foundational to education (e.g. knowledge, progress, intrinsic human value, diversity, design, history, and science) are often known yet cannot be justified by those who know them to be true. Of those many things, knowledge is the most foundational.

Knowledge, The Education System, and God

Knowledge is at the foundation of the entire education system. If we cannot find some way to ground our claims of knowledge to reality, we are merely communicating opinions. Because of this, if knowledge of reality is not even possible, then all knowledge disciplines (the subjects taught in school), are not rightly called "knowledge" but rather "opinion" disciplines. The connection of knowledge to God is required in two ways: first, the justification of what is true must be something that is chiefly concerned with what is true. Second, the agents who are attempting to discover what is true must possess faculties that are concerned with chiefly with what is true. 

We know from evolutionary biology that organisms and all their components are only "concerned" with survival (I place quotes around "concerned" because naturalistic evolution is neither forward-thinking nor purpose-driven). This means that our brains are not programmed by nature to believe what is true but rather to believe what will keep us alive. In a world that is "red in tooth and claw" it is better to be safe than sorry, so our brains register (believe) many false positives about dangers, for instance. This is just one example of "useful fictions" that our brains must believe, according to naturalistic evolution. Because they are chiefly concerned with believing what will keep us safe even if it is false, our brains are not reliable tools for apprehending truth. 

However, if our brains are created by a God who is concerned with our ability to believe what is true, then He would have created our brains (and sense organs, as well) with the ability to not only distinguish between what is true and what is safe, but it will also prefer the former (free will does have an effect on this, though). So, from the very foundation of the educational system, for it to even be called such, God is required. On this ground, alone, it is reasonable that an education system would recognize God's existence and its dependence upon Him for its very purpose in society (to educate).

Without proper justification, there is no objective standard by which to judge what is true or false about not just knowledge, but the things that we will continue to discuss in this post, and what is taught by the system about these things comes at the whim of whoever is currently controlling the system. The education system ultimately reduces to "might makes right," an exercise in epistemology anarchy. If the education system were to affirm any worldview that cannot justify knowledge, it is admitting its uselessness for imparting knowledge to the next generation and admitting that its only purpose is to propagandize our children into blindly believing that their purpose in life is to serve an elite class of people with money and power. 

For more on the necessity of God to justify knowledge, I highly recommend that you read the book "Where The Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism" by philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Also, see this short video explaining his argument:

Conclusion

It is only if God exists that what we believe can be justified. Without God, all claims to knowledge are merely opinions and do not actually reflect reality. If they do not actually reflect reality, then the "education" system is not imparting knowledge of what is true but rather indoctrinating opinions that are preferred by a few people in power. Since the public school system claims to impart knowledge of the world in which we live, it is only reasonable that our schools recognize the foundation and justification of knowledge: God. Students and parents are free to disagree; however, if they wish to do so, they need to defend an alternative justification.

For more on this topic and to see how several other foundations to the education system are justified only by God's existence, see the links throughout this post and these additional ones:

• Is Education Overrated? 
• The Magna Carta of Humanity
• Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible
• Would Jesus Participate In Politics?
• 6 Ways Atheism Is A Science-Stopper
• The Word of God and the Mind of Man
• Why Is The Image of God So Important?
• Agents Under Fire
• The Bible Among The Myths
• How Naturalism Defeats Science As A Knowledge Discipline
• 12 Things Your Professors Won't Tell You About God and Science
• Apple CEO Tim Cook On Ethics and Purpose In Technology
• Without God, Do We All "Bleed The Same"?

Can You Have Purpose Without God?

Introduction- Atheism and Purpose

One of the more convincing reasons to believe that atheism is false comes from man's desire for life to have purpose. If there is no designer behind the universe, life in general, and our individual lives in particular, have no ultimate purpose, no goal to guide our decisions, no finish line to motivate us to keep running when things get tough. The way that pastor Rick Warren put it in his book "The Purpose-Driven Life" makes it quite clear:

"Without a purpose, life is motion without meaning, activity without direction, and events without reason. Without a purpose, life is trivial, petty, and pointless."

If life is truly pointless, then why should anyone want to endure the suffering and pain that life brings? If life is pointless, as atheism necessarily implies, then there is no reason to want to continue to live. This is, quite literally, an unlivable philosophy for life, and if atheism necessarily implies this philosophy, then atheism is not just unlivable, but completely incompatible with living. And if a worldview is incompatible with living, it cannot be true. However, people do continue to live because they believe that their lives do have a purpose, so it follows that atheism is false. The power of this argument against their worldview is recognized by many atheists (they would agree with Warren in his assessment of the need for purpose), and they believe that they have found a way to undermine the soundness of the defeater of their worldview.

Resentment Tests Worldviews

Introduction

A few months ago, an article on Lifehacker with some financial advice caught my attention. In today's materialistic (financially speaking, not philosophically speaking) society, resentment towards those who spend more than we do is a real problem. Whether the source of the money is hard work, financial responsibility, a gift, a stroke of luck, a "cush" job, credit, something else, or a combination of any number of those things, there is a tendency for these people to be resented by others based upon their choices with money. While this may seem like something that is far removed from any apologetic topic, it really is not. This resentment is a feature of the fallen human condition, and any worldview that claims to be true must be able to explain its existence and have a solution for it, if it really is such a problem in the first place. Lifehacker is definitely not a religious site, and while I do not pretend to know the worldview of the author, generally there is at least an attempt by the authors to answer questions from within the secular worldview. So I was interested to see how the author would attempt to address this issue. I will start with looking at what is offered in the article and provide a practical critique, then I will offer an alternative that has greater explanatory power and practical usage. I would encourage the reader to check out the article before continuing. It can be read here: How to Deal With Resentment When Your Friends Make More Money Than You

What Solutions Did Lifehacker Offer?

While all the ideas in the article are good bandages, they do not address the cause of the problem. Since they do not address the cause, the resentment will return again and again. The solutions offered are good in the sense that they will last temporarily, but they will not fix the problem in the long term.

The first solution offered is to repeatedly "forgive" the other person for their ignorance of the resentful person's situation. This will get frustrating over time because the resented person is never made aware of how they have "offended" the resentful person and will never be provided the opportunity to change (not that they have actually done anything immoral that requires a change, anyway, so communicating such is likely to be challenged and cause two-way resentment).

The second suggestion is that the resentful person replaces the negative story in their head, about the resented person's situation and how they can spend more, with a more positive story about that person's situation. The problem with this is that all that is being suggested is to replace one speculation with another speculation. The author encourages the reader to tell themselves whatever they have to (true or not) to make them feel good about the person they resent rather than feel resentful toward them. Unless the resentful person habitually lies to themselves for practical reasons or is used to believing useful fictions, this will not last long either. A person can only believe something they know to be false for so long before they finally reject it and lose any "benefit" from believing it.

The third idea offered is merely a more systematic way of "keeping up with the Joneses." The goal is to be able to spend the way the other person does so that the resentful person is their materialistic equal. This too will not fix any issues with resentment for the object of the resentment will just change from the one person, who is now their equal, to the next person who spends even more. The resentment is not removed, it is displaced temporarily only to return and be targeted at another person. Ironically, in this "solution" resentment is self-perpetuating and never-ending.

The failure of all of these solutions indicates the failure of the explanation (worldview) that they are grounded in. Thus an alternative worldview (with a viable solution) is necessary.

What Is The Source?

While the author did not explicitly say that the resentful person is the problem, she did imply it in her focus on changing the person feeling the resentment. While I do believe that she is generally correct about the location of the problem, the specific identification of the problem is incorrect, thus so are the offered solutions based on that incorrect problem (this is how the secular worldview fails the test of practicality).

Temporary vs. Permanent

The author did get very close to the cause by suggesting that the resentful person ask a question of themselves: "What do I have to gain from being resentful." But that was the wrong question. The right question is "Why am I so resentful?" Interestingly, the answer is universal to all humanity but was not identified by the author because the wrong question was asked. The cause of the problem is a lack of contentment and gratitude. If we learn to be content and grateful for what we have, rather than focusing on what we do not have, we can be satisfied with our own situation and not be constantly comparing it to that of others. Without comparison, resentment has no grounding point.

However, several worldviews would grant that the lack of contentment and gratitude is the source of the problem of resentment. For instance, Christianity, New Age and Eastern worldviews tend to grant this. However, I believe that there is an important distinction that separates Christianity from the rest. While other worldviews can only provide a temporary solution (even to the correctly identified problem), Christianity offers the only permanent solution. But what is it? The Apostle Paul told the Phillippians the missing component ("the secret"): Christ (Phil. 4:11-13).

But how can Christ be the missing component? Being discontent and ungrateful is the natural, default position of the human heart, and the heart cannot change itself, no matter how hard or how long it tries to deny what it is (another useful fiction similar to the one I described above). Thus the temporary effect that will necessarily result, even in other worldviews that accurately identify the problem, is that people will attempt to change their heart apart from something outside themselves that has the causal power to accomplish the change.

Contentment

Paul expounds on this in his letter to the Romans (8:18): when we are focused on Christ, we are focused not on the temporary, physical things of this universe (such as money and things) but on the permanent, eternal life beyond this universe. When we are concerned with what is permanent and everlasting, it is easy to be content with whatever we have that is temporary and finite. It is only the focus on Christ and the everlasting life beyond this universe that He offers to us that will ultimately allow us to overcome materialistic resentment- "I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through Him, who gives me strength" (Phil. 4:12b-13). And while we are focused on Christ, He can change our heart.

It is not merely enough to be focused on something outside this universe (such as Nirvana or Moksha in the Eastern worldviews) because our focus will fade and no permanent change can take place. It takes a causal agent, who is also the object of our focus (Christ), to change our heart. Please do not mistake "focus" for an eastern-style "meditation;" the focus I speak of is not just a mental exercise but a complete surrender and dedication of our lives to Jesus Christ.

Gratitude

We also must recognize that "every good and perfect gift comes from the Father" (James 1:17). Giving thanks (gratitude) only makes sense if we have been provided something by someone other than ourselves. It is this second necessary solution to resentment that can only make sense if Christianity is true. God is the source of the temporary and finite things we have been given. So even though money and other temporary things are not our focus, we must still be grateful for them. This removes the focus on a second level- from what we do not have to what we do have. And with our lives surrendered and dedicated to Christ, we are free to search for ways to use what (little or much) God has given us for eternal purposes, not just the temporary purposes of this life. I think that financial guru Dave Ramsey puts it quite succinctly in his popular book "The Total Money Makeover":

Conclusion

Considering the fact that God has given all people the intuition that resentment is evil (or at least undesirable) and He has given us a mind that can reliably solve problems, it is no surprise that even secular solutions can get some things right. However, they will never be complete without the whole of reality in view. The solution must include Christ. The solution to financial resentment (and every other sin in our lives) can only take place through a renewed life in Christ. No other worldview can come even close to competing with Christianity's solution offered to financial resentment or any other sin. If you are struggling with financial resentment (or any other sin) and are tired of struggling to rely on yourself to fix a problem that you, as a human, do not have the ability to fix, Jesus' death and Resurrection are the only hope for a solution in reality. He extends the invitation: "Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt 11:28). When you bring the burdens of your sin to Christ, He will forgive and will create in you a pure heart (Ps 51:10). Christ's forgiveness is the only  permanent solution to every sin that plagues you, me, and everyone else. Will you come to Christ, or will you continue searching in vain for another temporary solution?

If you are looking for evidence that Jesus Christ is who He said He is (God) and can do what He said He can do (give you rest), consider the historical evidence for Jesus' death and resurrection here: Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?

Is Religion the Practice of Avoiding Truth?

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.