Most of the time, I'm not too fond of using the term "religion". I normally prefer to use "worldview" because it is more clear about what all a belief system entails. However, for this post, I will use the term common for the question posed in the title: Can religion be tested for truth?
Many years ago, I would not have even thought to ask if religion can be tested for truth. I never thought much about it, because the obvious answer to me seemed to be "Yes". Apparently, though, many people are questioning whether religion can be tested for truth today. Some even say that religion can't be tested, thus such a term as "true religion" is an oxymoron. A common slogan that I hear is, "You can't put God in a test tube". I thought that I might take a few minutes to break this down and form some kind of defense for the idea that religion can be tested.
Last week I talked a bit about the issues with presenting evidence and arguments that do not lead to an exclusive conclusion and one way to obtain an exclusive conclusion. Many times a single argument cannot produce an exclusive conclusion. However, there is another way to eventually obtain that single conclusion.
Investigations take place all the time. People investigate different happenings and phenomena throughout the world. Investigations are how we come to understand and are able to explain things. In any investigation, a series of evidences are compiled. Any explanation that is to be considered plausible must account for all the evidence. Investigators attempt to enter an investigation without any assumptions prior to seeing evidence. The truth is that an investigator has a reason for investigating otherwise investigating would be of little value.
Have you ever played the electronic game 20 Questions? If you haven't, this is what it is: You think of an object and the computer will ask you "yes/no" questions until it narrows down what you are thinking about. If you answer 20 questions, and it can't figure out what you're thinking about, you win. I've tried it a few times, and I've been able to stump it a couple. :) What the computer does is ask questions to get answers. It uses these answers as premises in an argument. Let's say that I'm thinking of something. It asks me if it is an animal; I tell it "yes". It asks me if it is fury; I say "no". It asks me if it is black; I say "no". If it asked only these three questions, and told me that me that I was thinking of a frog, it would be wrong (I'm thinking of a lizard). A frog does match the answers that I gave (the premises of the argument), but it does not match exclusively. The conclusion that the only thing that I could possibly be thinking about is a frog, is an overstated conclusion.
Everyone who's read this blog for a while or have talked with me extensively on worldview issues, knows that I am really big on defining terms. Anytime that I'm on the sidelines of a heated discussion and notice that the conversation can be cooled a bit by the participants understanding the other's terms, I point it out- it normally works to help understanding, but not necessarily agreement.
Example: The Problem of Evil
An easy way to show that something does not exist is to provide a definition then show how that definition is not in keeping with reality. Many of the objections to God's existence by atheists come in this form. Here is a common example:
There is obviously evil in this world.
God would not allow evil to exist.
Therefore, God does not exist.
An atheist who raises this objection has defined "God" as a supreme being who would not allow evil to exist and is obtaining his conclusion based on that definition. The problem is that most theists would agree that this "God" defined by the atheist does not exist! The atheist is quite rational with his conclusion, based on his definition of "God". This would throw off many who hold this definition of "God", especially when the theist concedes the conclusion but follows up with, "...but that's not the God I'm defending."
Last week I posted a review of "Has Christianity Failed You?" by Ravi Zacharias. In that book, Ravi talked about how members of the Church have failed people by not acting as Christianity teaches or by teaching something that Christianity does not teach- the person discovers the wrong behavior or the false teaching and projects the falsehood onto the entire worldview, thus rejecting it.
It came to my attention early this week that a somewhat influential person (Harold Camping) made a prediction that today is Judgment Day. I heard that several people believed him to the point of using the value of all their assets to warn others. I have no doubt, that this person will be used as a "poster child" of Christians and a reason to reject the truth of the Christian worldview. I have no doubt that many who follow this person will become disillusioned and "throw out the baby with the bath water" (leave Christianity). Unfortunately, this is one of those examples where a member of the Church is the source of the failure, not Christianity itself. A lot of times, in the defense of the truth of Christianity, it is not necessary to present an argument for God's existence or the resurrection of Christ; rather, all that is needed is a clarification on what Christianity teaches, and an explanation of why a certain someone, who has been proven to be wrong, is not actually teaching something that Christianity teaches. This is one of those situations.
One of the major obstacles that I come against in defending the Christian worldview is simply a misunderstanding of the worldview. So many times people tell me that they reject Christianity based on one thing or another that Christianity teaches. In the vast majority of the cases people are rejecting something that is not Christian but they believe is Christian.
In "Has Christianity Failed You?" Ravi Zacharias tackles this exact issue. If emphasis could be added in a title, I would place it on "Christianity". He believes that it is not Christianity that has failed people, but what they think is Christianity. Ravi introduces his book by telling of an open forum on the topic of this book that he spoke. The audience was eager to hear what Ravi had to say about the apparent failures of Christianity, intellectually and emotionally. This book is his thoughts on the issue.
Many skeptics of theism accuse theists of "god-of-the-gaps" argumentation when it comes to providing evidence for God's existence. Many theists claim that naturalists are guilty of using a "naturalism-of-the-gaps" argumentation to explain away evidence for God's existence. Others prefer to remain agnostic and simply, "I don't know, one way or the other." Yet, still others will say, "No one can know."
I've noticed a pattern here (I'm sure I'm not the first, though). We all know that we are not omniscient- none of us knows everything. Which means that everyone has gaps in their knowledge, and we fill those gaps with something (there are no exceptions, as I am about to show). As mentioned in my previous posts "What is Faith?" and "Do You Rely on Authorities?" we tend to look to past experiences to determine what to put our trust in to fill those gaps.
Regarding unanswered prayers, I've heard quite often in the Church that people don't have enough faith. There tends to be two different meanings to this statement. The first is that people are not trusting the evidence that they have that God is trustworthy when it comes to the unknown. The second is that people aren't trusting God to give them what they want.
I don't have a problem with the first; its the second that causes serious issues both inside and outside the Church. In the previous post (What is Faith?) I had mentioned the importance of knowing the nature of the person that we are looking to put trust in. If you don't have a proper understanding of that person's character, then any trust is likely to fail us. In the case of the second statement, if we believe that by placing faith in God we will be made healthy or rich, we are bound to have our faith in God shaken or even destroyed.
Last year Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 published an Essay Series: Is Christianity True? Many apologetics bloggers contributed to the series. My piece was on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Christians around the world celebrate Christ's resurrection the event reconciles us to the Father, let's not forget that if, in fact, this did not happen in history, our faith is useless (1 Cor 15), and anyone who does not believe it has no hope (John 14:6).Here is the greatly abbreviated case for the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ, as submitted for the essay series:
So many times I have heard people say that faith is believing something despite evidence against it. I have heard skeptics of Christianity deride faith based on this, and I have heard Christians claim a higher level of spirituality because they possess this kind of faith. But is this what faith really is? Let's look at it a little more closely.
A few years ago I listened to the podcast "The Word Nerds". This podcast helped me gain an appreciation for the power of the English language. In my conversations with people I have noticed the power of the words themselves. Using the wrong word can cause needless arguments; using a less specific word can cause confusion, and many other effects (I just checked Dictionary.com to make sure I used the right one there) come from using the wrong word.
It was probably a few months ago that I saw this video of Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church*. It caught my attention because of the distinction between potential and calling.
As I had mention in my previous post (Culture's Obsession with Self-Help), if man is the determiner of his own purpose, and man has a desire for purpose, then when a purpose is complete, he will find another, greater purpose. This will continue until the person dies. It is an endless pursuit with no real satisfaction.
Last month philosopher and apologist Doug Groothuis posted a blog about background music in public. He's not a big fan of it. But this article got me thinking a bit about the reasoning behind such intrusive music.
It seems that background music is normally part of an "environment" or "experience" that is trying to be replicated. From being in Mexico (mexican restaurants complete with Mariachi Bands) to the fasion runway (hip clothing stores "runway" music blaring in the background), companies are trying to create "experiences" for people.
Our postmodern culture has a fascination with "experiences" and "experience" in general. Authenticity (or reality) does not occur to people in today's culture. The experiences that I'm talking about here are artificial and inauthentic (not the real thing). However, authenticity cannot be experienced as easily or frequently as these facades. Culture trades few experiences with the authentic for many experiences with the inauthentic. With constant bombardment of the inauthentic "experiences", we lose the ability to appreciate the authentic experience.
Going back to music in general, I've noticed that lately a lot of "artists" who really can not sing are popular. Many fans of music are familiar with AutoTune. It is a lovely piece of technology that allows sound engineers to "correct" the notes that vocalists sing if they are incorrect. Unfortunately, if used too much, it makes the singer sound quite robotic. This is a great example of the artificial replacing the authentic. Fantasy supplants reality in such a way that it is preferred over reality. As we get inundated with the artificial and fantastic, we gradually lose the ability to appreciate the authentic.
The same thing has happened to truth. People have tried to live in their own fantasies for so long, that they don't want to leave them. This comes from a very existential way of viewing life. "Life is what I make of it; live like there is no tomorrow. Prefer the inauthentic because you never know if you will have the chance to experience the authentic; and for that same reason, I don't need to worry about not being able to appreciate the authentic"
Whether we are talking about truth or culture, being constantly bombarded with inauthenticity has huge detriments. The the inability to appreciate the authentic (reality and truth) becomes us. When we no longer have the ability to appreciate truth when we see it, so we have little reason to accept it or live our lives by it. We will gradually lose the ability to discern between what was created by man and what was created by God. Not recognizing the difference leads to confusion about to who or what to credit. Also focusing on having these "on-demand experiences" encourages us to think existentially. If we only think about the "here and now", we do not contemplate the future or reflect on the past. If we are perpetually entertained with these "experiences" we have no reason to investigate the deep questions of life and reality. All we have is the current moment.
Now that I've dumped on these "experiences" quite a bit, let me talk about the benefits of them. Obviously, if we spent our entire lives only allowing for the truly authentic in everything, we would not be exposed to much of reality. These inauthentic experiences give us a taste (no pun intended) of the authentic. For those who are able to experience both, comparisons can be made and critiques offered to enhance the accuracy of the depictions for those who don't have the resources to enjoy certain authentic experiences.
Two of my favorite things are inauthenticities: ethnic foods and educational television. I don't have the opportunity to travel worldwide just to experience the culinary delights of the nations. Neither do I have the resources to investigate every discipline of science that grab my curiosity. However, local restaurants give me a taste of authentic foods, which makes me desire the authentic experience even more; and television (and the internet) give me the opportunity to "look" through the eyes of researchers to discover the beauty of creation. I can even learn to appreciate AutoTune...from a technical perspective, not artistic, of course.
The most significant thing that I can think to tie all this together is "love". Culture has spent decades of time and billions of dollars promoting an inauthentic love. Many have been so persuaded that the inauthentic accurately reflects the authentic, that when they see the Authentic, the see no significance or even see it as wrong. For those of us who have experienced the authentic love of Christ, we need to be in the culture critiquing its inaccurate portrayal of love. We cannot isolate ourselves from culture (even the inauthentic parts), we must be in the middle of it. We must be familiar enough with the inauthentic and authentic to show those who live for the inauthentic why the truth and reality of Christ's love and His sacrifice for us are to be treasured above all. From that Christian perspective, the inauthentic may be enjoyed at the same time that we are guiding people back into a loving relationship with their Creator.
I am really excited to bring you this review. Dr. Hugh Ross and the Reasons to Believe (RTB) scholar team are the means that Christ used to keep this modernist thinker from completely giving up on the Christian faith about seven years ago. You can read about this more on my page Nature vs. Scripture. Reasons to Believe provides a scientific and Biblical model of the creation and history of the universe that is testable. They have produced many books and papers outlining details of different aspects of the model. They have not really produced a single resource that provides a quick overview of the model for those who might be curious and need an introduction.
That's where More Than a Theory comes in. This book was written as an introduction to the various aspects of the testable model. It frequently refers the reader to the other resources for more details. Throughout this review I will include links to their other books and articles on their website that I am familiar with that go into some more details. Dr. Ross also produced a series of podcasts that briefly go over the contents of each chapter. I will include a link to each episode at the end of each chapter's description. These episodes will give you a better description of the contents of the chapters plus what Dr. Ross specifically want the reader to focus on for each chapter.
Most people do not really think to ask this question about Evolution. However, it has become quite the important question in determining the validity of the paradigm. In this post when I refer to "evolution" I am referring to macroevolution (see my post "Useful or Useless Evolutionary Terms"). If I am talking about microevolution, I will make the distinction.
As I discussed in the previously cited post, random mutation does happen, and natural selection does operate on those mutations. This observation has been extrapolated over time into the theory of Evolution. According to the paradigm, life began as a single-cell organism, and through the process noted, we arrive at the state of life today (complex, mega-multicellular organisms).
The other day I was in conversation with a friend who is quite involved in the political scene over here in The States. Every now and then she will forward me the latest "evidence" pointing toward the corruption of government in general. However, she had made a religious claim that she based on subjective evidence. I had asked her to support the assertion in a way that might be compelling to someone else. She not only offered the subjective evidence, but claimed that it was up to the other person to prove her point of view incorrect, then she topped it off with, "That is my opinion".
I want to take a few minutes to discuss the process of elimination regarding everyday life, science, and philosophy.
As most of you know, I work in the Information Technology (IT) department at my company. The other day I was doing some troubleshooting for one of our graphic artists. She called me and said that her monitor had started flickering. She stated that she thought that there was something wrong with the monitor and wanted it replaced. Just to get this on the table now, I was not thrilled with having to replace this specific monitor. It is one of the more expensive ones in the company.
Starting with that thought, I made a list of the possible causes in my head: cables, video card, specific monitor input (it has two), or software on the PC (that could be any range of possibilities). I begin going through some troubleshooting steps to eliminate the possible causes: I reboot the computer; I check (and replace) the cables; I check a different input on the monitor; I try the other output on the video card; check some settings... None of those fixed the problem.
Over the last several years I've come across a couple of "philosophies" when it comes to how a person's personal relationship to a belief affects their ability to represent it accurately. I have heard people state that if someone does not believe something, then they cannot accurately represent it. The "support" provided is that if they were familiar enough to represent it accurately (and in its most powerful form), the person would believe it. But then I've also heard many say that those who believe something cannot accurately represent it. The "support" provided is if someone believes something, they obviously want it to be true, so they will misrepresent a false belief in order to support its truth.
What's interesting is that I've heard both from a couple of the same people, but with regards to different topics: "You can't trust the disciples of Jesus to tell us the truth about him because they obviously wanted to believe he was God and the resurrection happened," and "You can't trust a Christian who used to be an atheist (or other worldview) to accurately represent atheism (or other worldview) because he does not want it to be true." The only identification of when to use which is, "whichever one supports my own view." But that is not a valid reason because of its subjective foundation. When I apply either critique is dependent totally on me, and I can change it whenever I please.
The new tolerance has plenty of philosophical and pragmatic problems. Last year I discussed the intolerance of the new tolerance. I showed how the new tolerance is actually self-defeating. However today I want to talk about the effects if the new tolerance was the philosophy and practice of the earliest humans.
Traditionally tolerance has been described as being able to civilly live alongside a person if they hold contrary beliefs. The person being tolerant could still be considered "tolerant" if they questioned and debated the other person. However, today tolerance eliminates that last bit. In order to be considered "tolerant" we not only must be able to civilly live alongside those who hold contrary beliefs, but we cannot question or debate the other person. Some would even take it as far as to say that one person must celebrate or even accept the contrary view as containing the same level of truth as their own belief.
One word and one phrase need clarification in this question. "Good" and "without God".
I want to look at the phrase "without God". My first clarifying question would be "do you mean 'without God's existence' or 'without believing in God'?" The answer to this question will determine how my unasked question about the meaning of "good" will be answered.
If the atheist answers "without God's existence," then it is quite easy. The answer is "yes" and "no"- both meaning the same thing and being just as valid as the other. Since atheists must base their morals on sociocultural contract theory, "good" (which is a moral term) has no objective, intercultural definition. So, one person in one culture may answer the question "yes" (basing his answer on the "goodness" of general behavior), and another person in another culture may answer the question "no" (same basis). If God does not actually exist, this answer does not change even if someone believes that He exists.
This is going to build a bit more on my previous post "Naturalism and Human Equality". Naturalism demands that all living entities be ascribed equal value.
This includes bugs and plants. Why should we ascribe greater value to humans? Why not whales, because of their size, or certain trees, because of their long life-spans? If evolution is to be used as a guide, then we must conclude that survivability is the ultimate ascription for value. We could look at survivability of an individual or of an entire species, and we still would not conclude that humans are on top, though.
I want to look at a couple terms that have been added to the evolutionary vocabulary, but are hotly contested:
Microevolution- evolutionary changes that result in differences within a species or genus.
Macroevolution- series of microevolutionary changes that result in a new genus, family, order, etc...
The other day, a naturalist claimed that no such distinction is necessary. The argument is that there is a long string of microevolutionary changes from species to species, from genus to genus, family to family, etc...; macroevolutionary changes are a series of microevolutionary changes that result in a new species, genus, family, etc...; thus macroevolutionary changes are really the same as microevolutionary changes over time. Since they are ultimately the same, there is no need to distinguish between the two terms. This person further claimed that even if they allowed the distinction in terms, the fact that small changes over time is undisputed, means that many changes over time is proven; microevolution is undisputed, therefore a lot of microevolution (macroevolution) is proven.
Atheists claim that atheism is the default position that people take. Many atheists use this to bolster their philosophy of methodological naturalism in the sciences. But many Christians deny that atheism is the default position. I tend to agree with the atheist, but only to a point. All people are born with a sin nature that denies God, and specifically the Christian God. Technically, Christianity expects that the default worldview of any human being will be anti-Christian, and atheism falls into this category. So, atheism isone of the default positions of man when it comes to a worldview.
However, the atheist is claiming that naturalism is the true worldview. The default position in naturalism, though, is not atheism, as they believe. The default worldview of a person is relative to the culture in which the individual grows up. If the person grows up in an atheist home, and chooses anything other than atheism as their worldview, they have denied their default position in favor of another (be it Hindu, Islam, Christianity, or whatever). However, if a person grows up in a Christian home and remains a Christian, they have stuck with their default position.
The Closing of the American Heart is a critique of today's school system. Even though Dr. Nash wrote this book in the late 1990, it still seems quite applicable today. What attracted me to this book was first that it was written as a response to Alan Bloom's book The Closing of the American Mind; second that it recognizes the emotions are a critical part of our reasoning process as fallen human beings.
Nash starts out critiquing Bloom's book in Chapter 1. His main critique was that even though Bloom correctly identified an issue in the school system (and traced its history), he did not offer much of a solution. It seems that Nash was thinking that memorizing more facts is not the solution. The problem is the philosophical foundation- hearts set against God to the point that they will accept erroneous conclusions to avoid Him. Although Nash wrote this as a response to Bloom, it seems to me to be more of an addition to Bloom. Bloom answered the questions of "what happened" and "how it happened". Nash offers to answer "why did it happen" and "what should we do about it"
Introduction
On a few occasions, I've heard people complain that the Christian worldview allows people to avoid the consequences of their actions. By accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, they are able to have all their sins forgiven and escape eternal punishment. This implies that someone may live a life of sin, then on their death bed repent and be able to escape eternal punishment.
The atheist, specifically, points out that all people face consequences of bad actions (whether the consequences are carried out naturally or by the state). They state that the Christian worldview not only does not offer any better "justice" than naturalism, but even offers people a way to escape consequences.
I understand this concern. However, I want to look at it a bit more closely, because I hear it from both unbelievers and believers.
Natural Consequences?
First, I want to point out that not all actions that we would consider "wrong" have a natural consequence. Some do have natural consequences, but a lot of times, those consequences are delayed and are not tied to the original action. And others (if perceived) may be interpreted differently by different individuals or cultures. Nature is not a good place to look for moral guidance.
Even if I were to grant that nature should be left to carry out consequences, what about the mass murderer who shoots himself before the authorities arrest him? That person will never suffer natural consequences of his "wrong" actions, not to mention any consequences from the state. Are we, then, to conclude that the murders were not morally wrong?
Revenge vs. Justice
Second, let's consider that this concern may originate from our desire for revenge, not justice. We have problems identifying what "justice" even is. I mean, a person can commit murder, yet only be locked away for life; while another murderer is killed for his action. Can you identify which consequence was "just"? If the former, then the second might be seen as overkill (no pun intended). If the latter, then justice was not served in the first situation. Each of us needs a different reaction from those dispensing "justice" to feel that the offender has been served appropriately. I think that this is better described by the word "revenge".
Let's continue with the idea that our desire for revenge is actually justice. A person commits a murder; every person who has been affected would need to carry out their individual "justice" on that murderer. The result would be that the murderer may end up dying 100 deaths (certainly more than the one he was responsible for), many of those deaths may be in the same manner that he killed his victim. But has "justice" been served since he suffered much more than he caused? Who is to say that it is or is not justice?
Nature and Government Are Simply Not Enough
Natural consequences exist to keep the level of evil the human heart is capable of in check, to a point. Those placed in authority should act according to the moral law given by the One who has placed them in power, to also mitigate the evil in man's heart. Of course, those in authority are men full of evil just as those they lead and judge; that is why a governmental system of checks and balances is so important but not perfect (but that is another story).
The Jealous Christian
When Christians express the concern that someone may be forgiven for a life of sin on their death bed, we are expressing a desire for revenge. We know that they will escape eternal punishment, and that doesn't seem "just" to us. I might even say that some Christians are jealous because they have the desire to do something that they think would be really pleasing, but is not moral. The person who repented on the death bed probably got to carry out that desire, yet is still forgiven. As Christians, we need to examine our own hearts if we ever express this concern.
Is Christianity Inconsistent?
When naturalists complain about this, it is normally because they are pointing out what they believe to be an inconsistency, contradiction, or injustice. We have to remember that sincerity and authentic desire to spend eternity with a just God for all of eternity is required (See my post about hell) to be saved. God knows the heart; He knows if the person is just saying certain things because they think that by doing so, they can avoid eternal punishment. Just saying words is not going to save someone. Just because someone says that they believe, does not mean that they actually do. They may just be speaking a few trite phrases when they're about to "kick the bucket" in an effort to avoid eternal punishment. God knows their heart and cannot be manipulated. If God could be manipulated in this way, I would agree that a great injustice is being committed, but then I would also have to examine if I agree with that because of my desire for revenge and not justice.
God's Justice?
We have a responsibility to God (read my post "Does Responsibility Exist?") to act morally. We act offended and desire revenge because we believe that we hold objective value and that offending something of good value is wrong. However, we derive our objective value from God (read my posts about Human Equality). We have not been offended by evil (even though we think that we are because of the value we place on ourselves). God is the one who is offended. God alone has the authority to carry out ultimate punishment. That means that God alone knows when and how to execute absolute justice. The fact that He is a just God, means that He will execute perfect justice...not revenge.
Justice and Mercy
The hardest idea for people who raise this criticism is that God is a merciful God. Perfect justice includes mercy. Since God is the one responsible for holding us responsible, He may choose to show mercy, but mercy is not the opposite of justice (revenge is), so they are not incompatible. Mercy does not undermine justice...it undermines revenge. Justice is not the concern of people raising this criticism, its revenge. That is why many people are repelled by the idea of mercy and the Christian faith.
Ultimate Justice Is Served
Funny thing is that if there is no afterlife for consequences to be served, someone can commit mass murder and only experience justice for a maximum of one of the people murdered. The murderer can even escape that punishment by committing suicide. On the naturalistic view, many consequences can be escaped and are escaped. But this shouldn't bug any naturalist, because morality is not objective; the offended have no intrinsic value, and there is no foundation for the responsibility to act "morally" or be "punished".
The Christian worldview, properly understood, does not allow anyone to escape consequences, while naturalism, properly understood, allows anyone and everyone to escape consequences whenever they desire to.
This is the latest single from the band Hawk Nelson. Pay close attention to the final verse...
"We know it sounds absurd; we don't get what we deserve,"...the reason it sounds absurd is because of our desire for revenge. The desire for revenge comes from our pride. We feel that we have been offended...and that deserves further punishment. Part of being a Christian involves letting go of our pride (See post "Pride vs. Confidence"- Is it really so dumb to give it all away?). If we can do this, we don't have to be concerned about if a sinner "escapes" eternal punishment. Instead, we can rejoice in the fact that there will be one more to join us in the eternal, loving fellowship with the Creator we betrayed but loved us enough to take on the punishment for our betrayal so that forgiveness may be offered to us. THIS is the power of God's crazy love for you and me. If we can put aside our pride and our desire for revenge, we can see clearly how mercy, justice, and love logically come together...and we can personally experience the joy that results from it.
I have spent this post telling everyone that they need to leave judgment to God. This is only part of the picture. If you're curious about when is appropriate for Christians to judge, see my series "Judgment Day".
Christianity requires the laying down of pride. Many interpret this to be a sacrifice of confidence. It is sacrificing confidence, but sacrificing confidence in something not worthy of it, and building confidence in Someone that is worthy of it. When you recognize that your confidence is in an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, perfectly just, and perfectly merciful God, you will have a renewed confidence in yourself. But, if your confidence in God goes below the confidence in yourself (pride) again, you will have to make the sacrifice again. The Christian must never over-estimate his capabilities, or under-estimate God's. There is a delicate balance of self-confidence versus trust in God in the Christian's life. Sacrificing our own pride has to be done constantly, because we are still sinful and always default to making God less in our lives and ourselves more. To be a Christian requires the humble desire and duty to make God more and ourselves less.
Naturalism devalues humans to the point of being of equal value to dirt or having no value at all (neither does dirt, really; see short series "Human Equality and Naturalism"). This has created a psychological crisis of self-confidence. The culture has proposed what it thinks to be the answer...beauty, muscles, money, status, titles, power, education, "causes". People strive for these things constantly to the point of being obsessed, because they want to establish their value and be worthy of confidence (from themselves or other people).
This is self-defeating. If humanity has little or no value, why is confidence in humanity (thus, one's self) so important? In order to make life even seem like it is worth living (considering all the suffering involved), naturalism tells us that we have to place value on ourselves. Yet we know that that kind of value cannot simply be stated to be true- there must exist some foundation for the value, then it can be stated to be true. People will try to establish the foundation the way that naturalism offers (given above), but they do figure out that a foundation based on those things is only as strong as the value that culture places on them. Unfortunately, culture is fickle and changes what it believes to hold value constantly. When one person builds their value based on one thing, its value changes to being useless. All that time, effort, and resources were wasted, because their confidence is based on a value level, that is based on a foundation of relative value, that is based on a culture synonymous with A.D.D.
Responsibility assumes three things in order to have meaning:
Subject
Objects
Obliged Action
Person A has a responsibility to Person B to perform action X on Person C.
Subject (Person A) is the person who possess the responsibility (obliged to perform action).
Object (Person B and C) is the person who the subject is obliged to perform the action to and/or for.
Last week, I explained how the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm cannot explain the existence of equal human value. This week, I will build upon last week and show why it cannot explain intrinsic value either. If you have not read last week's post, you will probably be lost.
The fact that we do survive is a product of the Imago Dei. We possess a mind that is capable of simple and complex thought- both of which can be and are used for survival. Unfortunately, man is fallen. One of the results of this fallen nature is the fact that man is self-focused (prideful and narcissistic). This causes man to focus acutely on his survival (survival is not wrong in itself, but the desire for it causes many to make choices based on a certain level of paranoia). Man will use this mind to come up with "ways of survival" that violate the intrinsic, equal value of other human beings (typically the illogical conclusion is one that violates another human life. They "reason" that it is the only option when it really is not). Murder is an example. In Christianity, murder is a sin because it is a direct insult to God, Himself ("I think so little of God and so highly of myself, that I will destroy a reflection of His value and His nature to further my own existence.").
I find it extremely interesting that many naturalists promote human equality. Human equality is a Judeo-Christian concept that is foreign to any worldview that must rely upon naturalistic evolution to explain the existence of the human race. Here's what I mean:
One of the major pillars of naturalistic, evolution is "survival of the fittest". This simply means that the lifeforms most fit for a certain environment will propagate their offspring into the next generation; lifeforms that possess any feature that inhibits their survival, will eventually die off. Value is assigned based on this survivability.
I was thinking the other day about the burden of proof. It seems that no one wants to bare it. Many atheists claim that they don't shoulder the burden of proof because "you can't prove a negative". Some theists claim that they don't hold it because you can't prove something that is metaphysical (based on the assumption that only things that can be decisively measured can be "proven").
If you believe the resurrection of Jesus Christ actually happened, share this with your friends (use the buttons below).
Dr. Michael Licona has released a new book that investigates the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It weighs in at 718 pages and is sure to be a great resource for those honestly searching for answers:
This post builds upon my short series on building a cumulative case (Parts 1, 2, 3) and on last week's post about authorities.
The other day I was speaking with someone who claimed that inductive reasoning was superior to abductive reasoning, and even went as far as to say that inductive reasoning destroyed the need for abductive reasoning. By "abductive reasoning" I am talking about a cumulative case- taking lots of evidence and developing an interpretation that explains it all consistently.
Have you noticed that when you make a claim and point out that an authority on the subject agrees, the person who disagrees with the point tends to question the authority? Have you ever noticed that you do the same when you disagree with a point? I have had several people who have said that I was using the authority of the person cited as an argument for the truth of the claim; then dismiss it. Am I wrong?
Painting, dance, music, etc...are forms of communication that are not verbal. Artists are attempting to communicate via means besides the spoken word. Anyone who comes to art as a deconstructionist ("it means whatever the viewer/listener wants it to mean") destroys the communicable genius of the product and cheapens the communication ability of the artist. If one was to approach the spoken word (another form of communication) as a deconstructionist ("I can interpret what you say however I want"- "it means whatever the listener wants it to mean") you and I would not be able to communicate effectively with one another (what's in my mind would not effectively or accurately be transmitted to your mind).
Can God hold us accountable for what we are supposed to know is true?
I have two thoughts on this subject:
1. Analogy from speed limits. You have a duty to know where the speed limit changes, especially if you live in the general area. If a speed limit sign is temporarily obscured from view, you are expected to have seen it in the past, or know by other means what the speed limit is (such as from friends familiar with the area or context [neighborhood, school zone, highway, gravel road, etc...], even if the context may include multiple limits, acting upon the lower possibility will eliminate the possibility of being pulled over, while acting on a higher one puts you at risk of being pulled over). You are expected to use these other means until you know for sure.. If you are caught above the speed limit (regardless of reason), you are guilty of acting against the law and should be punished according to the law. If the cop wishes to show mercy, he may by issuing a warning. If the judge wishes to show mercy, he may either cancel the ticket or reduce the fine. Either way, it still stands that you broke the law; however, it is within the power of those who enforce the law to show mercy.
I've always been annoyed by the "fire and brimstone" preachers and Christians. Not because I necessarily disagreed with them, but because of what they implied. Too many of them were almost trying to scare people into The Kingdom. "If you don't come to Christ, these horrible things are going to happen to you." Not only is this not appealing to most people, it comes from a very flawed way of understanding the choice that we make when we accept Christ.
When we accept Christ as our Lord and Savior, we are actively choosing Him. We are not coming to Him as a last ditch effort to avoid something unpleasant (Hell). Since we are relational creatures, we don't just pick the lesser of the discomforts, we make particular choices because we believe that they are set apart from the other options in a very distinct way.
As many of you are aware, Dr. Stephen Hawking released some interesting statements to the media last week regarding the creation of the universe. There have been many responses, both good and bad. I’m going to start with sharing a couple of the responses that I found to be most beneficial (as of this post), then I will provide a perspective that I have not seen presented yet:
The Risen Jesus And A Future Hope is a great book in which the Dr. Gary Habermas defends the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and shows the practical implications of the truth of the claim. Dr. Habermas split the book into the two sections respectfully. Habermas begins his defense by laying a few foundations in Chapter 1.
The first foundation is the inductive nature of the study of history. He then discusses the difference between miracles and miracle-claims. He cautions against accepting a priori (prior to evidence) conclusions. He then provides classical arguments against miracles (David Hume) and responds to the arguments.
It is really amazing how closely purpose and design are related, and their further relation to the problem of evil. Before someone can design some device, they must have a purpose- they don't just start throwing stuff together and find a purpose for it later. Likewise, end-users look at devices and see specific purposes for them. The sane end-user would not conclude that the useful device was not designed. Granted, some devices take on purposes different from the original; however, the device still has purpose, otherwise it would not be in the market.
Opinions reflect feelings and may or may not be true. If one claims that their thoughts are simply "opinions" (not claiming to actually be truth- even though it might be) then they have no responsibility to provide a reasoned defense of the position.
A while back I was listening to Greg Koukl's radio show "Stand to Reason", and a caller challenged the need for apologetics (1 Peter 3:15) at all. His main concern was that nobody could be "argued" into the Kingdom, and that apologists were wasting their time with "hollow and deceptive philosophy" (Colosians 2:8).
I have to agree that his first premise is valid, but I don't agree with the second premise and thus, his conclusion. I don't think that anyone can be "argued" into the Kingdom. For example, knowing that someone exists is different from wanting a loving relationship with them. Someone can believe that the Christian God exists, yet not want to have a personal relationship with Him. That person can recognize that the evidence points toward the Resurrection being a historical event, but not want to dedicate their life to that fact. A belief thatis different from a belief in.
This post originally published July '09. It has been updated with new content and links to several related posts.
I have come across several people who have told me that right practice is more important than right beliefs. We're all familiar with the phrase "You can talk the 'talk', but can you walk the 'walk'?" These same people interpret this to mean that acting properly is more important than believing properly. I disagree.
Right Living presupposes Right Thinking. How one lives is dependent on how one perceives the world. Perception always precedes action. In order for someone to determine that an action is required (or not), a perception must be made. If a person makes the wrong perception, the wrong action may very well follow. Of course, if the right perception is made, the right action may very well follow also. This is not a definite equation because one still has to make a decision based on, not just one perception but, numerous perceptions; and it may not always be clear which of those perceptions should take precedence over the other(s). To make that determination (action), other perceptions must be invoked.
Introduction
Everyday thousands of scientists around the globe perform experiments and observations of the natural realm. They note a certain condition, make (or allow) a change, then note the new condition. Many times, the same experiment or observation is conducted repeatedly to be certain the results of the first (second or third) were not just "flukes". Scientists combine many of these to come to conclusions about the natural realm. But what is it that allows these conclusions to hold any validity? They are based on experiments and observations, but what allows those to be trusted to reflect the natural realm?
Consistency In Nature
The entire scientific enterprise is based on one assumption: the natural realm is consistent. That means that in multiple instances when all conditions are the same, identical results will be produced. Experiments and observations are repeatable. You can be certain that if you perform the same experiment in the precise same way a second time, you will get the same results. If scientists were able to produce water from the combination of two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom in one experiment, then gold with the same ingredients in the second (then another substance third, and so on), they could conclude that this was not a consistent phenomena. Further, if scientists found that their experiments, when performed exactly the same way, produced different results without any consistency, they could conclude that the natural realm was not predictable, and investigation of it is futile.
This post originally posted June '09. It has been updated with some new content and links to the updated posts.
Here's something to think about:
When engaging someone in a discussion or debate, should you focus on their understanding of their own worldview, not the "correct" or "accepted" understanding of their worldview?
Greg Koukl (in his book Tactics) says to focus on the person's understanding. His reasoning is that focusing on another understanding (whether its "correct" or not- it makes no difference) will make the person believe that you are either ignoring their concern, or trying to belittle them by telling them how to believe what they believe.
I briefly touched this topic in my post "Is Consistency Important?". Today, I want to expand it a bit more.
A Positive Argument is an argument for your particular position. A Negative Argument is an argument against an opposing position.
It seems like everywhere I go, people want to point out what's wrong with the opposition's arguments. It does not matter if we are talking about political views, religious views, or any other view that is tied to a deep conviction. So many people focus so tightly on the opposition that they forget about their own point of view. This is not a very good strategy. The reason I say this is for one simple reason. Let's say you have a plan to accomplish something, and one of your teammates expresses great dissatisfaction with your plan and even provides every reason in the world not to use it. It would come natural to you to ask if your teammate had a better plan. If no other plan was proposed, then the team would have to stick with the original, no matter how many flaws it had.
Something that I have noticed a lot in society today: people hold positions and swear that they never question or challenge their views (many believe that is a sign of how strongly they hold them). Unfortunately, for many of these people, you can easily believe that. Many of these same people are afraid that if they challenge their view, that they will find that it may not be the best or it may not even be true. I knew many Christians as I grew up who were like this. They tended to accuse others of not having "faith" because they questioned or challenged Christianity (see my post "Is 'Blind Faith' Biblical" for my answer to these people).
In my posts and in my discussions about worldviews, I stress consistency. When I say "consistency" I'm talking about the beliefs within a worldview being logically compatible with each other and beliefs being compatible with the adherents' behaviors (see the Psychology Class Series).
One of the "worldview tests" that Kenneth Samples discusses in his book on worldviews, "A World of Difference", is a test for internal consistency. Any worldview that claims to accurately reflect reality (be true) must maintain consistency among its beliefs. Truth cannot conflict with truth. So, if a worldview were to say that 2+2=4 and that 3x2=5, it would have a serious problem. The fact that the second claim is false has no bearing on the truth of the first claim, it only has bearing on the truth of the worldview as a whole. Any worldview that contains two contrary beliefs that cannot be resolved within the framework of the worldview without creating more contrary beliefs must be discarded.
This post originally published in March of '09. I have added links to similar posts.
Its been quite interesting to see how many atheists there are who believe that objective morality exists. Actually, I would say that the majority believe in objective morality. However, objective morality is inconsistent with the atheist worldview; they don't have a foundation for acting in a "moral" way versus an "immoral" way. I'm not saying that atheists can't be moral; they can. I'm just saying that they can't justify it. Here's why.
Morality implies "oughtness". How something ought to behave. That implies that you understand that that thing (that ought to behave in a certain way) was designed to behave in the expected way. Example: A watch ought to keep time. It is designed to keep time; therefore, it ought to. If it were not designed to do anything, it ought (is expected) to do nothing.
.jpg)
