This is quite the interesting question. If we can't trust our senses and/or our logic then we're in deep trouble. We would not be able to trust anything that we experience (not to mention the entire scientific enterprise), nor would be able to trust that we would be able to find any form of truth.
I'm going to look at three different worldviews and what they say about this. (Due to the desire to be brief, this post is in no way a comprehensive or nuanced understanding or treatment of these worldviews or the challenges I raise.) Let's start with the eastern worldviews.
Communication is key to any kind of interaction with people. It helps us accomplish common goals, empathize with each other, or persuade of another opinion. Communication also informs people around us who we are and what we think.
Communication is an awesome tool, but it can do much damage if not used properly. This holds true in all types of situations.
As (hopefully) everyone knows, communication is a two-way street for the parties involved. If you are attempting to communicate with another person, you convey information, and they convey information. The key is for each of you to accept the conveyed information. I'm not talking about just "hearing" or "seeing", but interpreting and understanding. If one of you interprets the information incorrectly, it could result in something as small as a simple misunderstanding or as large as an personal insult (that does lasting emotional damage).
In Part 1, I proposed a dilemma. Who's in control: Us or God? I showed that both beliefs have biblical support and that believing either way would undermine biblical inerrency. In Part 2, I will provide a possible answer that preserves biblical inerrency, God's sovereignty, and human free will.
I want to start by discussing God's omniscience a bit. The Bible clearly teaches that God knows all things (see Part 1 for references). He also knows our hearts (Ps 44:21; 139:1-4). I would like to propose that, based on this, God knows how every person will react freely to any and all circumstances that may be presented to them before He created them. This is referred to as "middle knowledge". (For more information about the doctrine of God's omniscience, including His middle knowledge, I will refer you to William Lane Craig's podcast Defenders. You will want the episodes on the Doctrine of God.)
Suffering is a topic that comes up quite often. This topic seems to come up for one of two reasons: someone is trying to undermine the belief in the all-powerful, all-loving God of the Bible; or someone is going through a horrible time in their life and are trying to figure out why God is allowing them to suffer so much physical or emotional pain. I'll touch on both of them here.
God made a promise to Israel, “For I know the plans I have for you…plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future.” (Jeremiah 29:11)
Paul was confident that a similar promise from God now extends to the Body of Christ, “…he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 1:6)
This post originally published in Jan 2009. I have updated it with more information and links several times since then:
Several years ago, I was having quite a difficult time reconciling my faith with the findings of modern science. The Bible seemed to say one thing, while scientists said the complete opposite (or at least something that wasn't reconcilable). Unfortunately, I was not aware that the problem was that I was trying to reconcile interpretations rather than the raw facts.
People in the Christian community led me to believe that the doctrine of Biblical Inerrency applied to the interpretations, rather than the raw statements of Scripture. Scientists persuaded me believe that their interpretations of the data could not be questioned, rather than the raw data.
Believing these inaccuracies led me to further to believe that my faith was based on emotion, and science was based on reality- the two could not be reconciled. I was in this state of confusion and conflict for quite a few years. Would I give up my Christian faith or believe that everything I observed was really an illusion? If I kept my faith, could I live with the ideas that everything I observed was illusory, and that the God I believed in was either not omniscient or was intentionally deceptive? If I rejected my faith, what purpose do I have, and how could I even ground the idea that what I observed was actually real? I was caught between a life with no purpose and no ground for knowing anything, and another life with purpose given by an untrustworthy God and still no ground for knowing anything. Both were a leap of blind faith and neither sounded very appealing.
Well, I was only going to have this series be a two-parter, but after reflecting on it, I thought I should throw in one more.
In the first part of this series I described the persuasive power of a cumulative case. In the second part I discussed the Psychological power (both negative and positive) that a cumulative case can have.
I concluded the series stating that it is quite difficult to communicate an entire cumulative case. I want to also add that it is quite difficult to communicate an entire worldview that the cumulative case is supporting. This really made me realize the importance of 1 Peter 3:15 ("...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect").
In last week's post, I discussed what a cumulative case is and why it is important. In this part I want to tie the cumulative case to our psychology and go a little deeper into its importance. If you haven't read my Psychology Class Series, please read it before continuing. This will make more sense if you do.
A cumulative case has "power in numbers" on its side. If a conclusion has 100 pieces of evidence and lines of reasoning that support it, one piece or line that goes against it may not necessarily bring the whole thing down. That single piece or line may need to be verified or reinterpreted, but cannot be ignored. If someone is aware of the large cumulative case for their worldview, one discovery is not likely to bring their belief of their worldview down.
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.
As mentioned before, I wrote an essay a while back to be published on Apologetics 315 as part of a series of short essays about the truth of Christianity. Brian Auten has been publishing essays since the beginning of the month, and all of them have been fantastic. I have found many bloggers that I was not aware of. The cumulative resources among all of them is astounding. Definitely check out the series.
Last week I looked at one of the arguments for universalism. The argument was that since all the religions teach pretty much the same moral code, the religions must lead to the same place. Since the original writing of that post, I have been provided with a more nuanced argument that eliminates that the idea that all religions are the same. They maintain that the religions can be different and still lead to the same destination. Since the argument is more nuanced now, so will my answer.
Universalism posits that all religions lead to the same destination as long as the adherent is sincerely following whatever religion. Universalists like to point to the fact that people all have different "starting points" in life . The two primary examples given is geographical location and culture- both can be barriers to receiving information about the "correct" worldview. They believe that this is not fair, and since they project their idea of "fairness" onto any deity that might exist (see my previous series "God: Your Way, Right Away"), they conclude that exclusivistic religions are not correct. They also say that since there are many ways that one can go to reach a physical destination, this must be the same with regards to the religions.
A couple months ago Brian Auten of the Apologetics315 blog invited Christian apologetics bloggers to contribute to a new project. His goal was to compile essays that clearly communicated some of the reasons that apologists believe that Christianity stands true while other worldviews fall. His goal was to mainly have essays that provided positive cases for the truth of Christianity.
23 bloggers, including myself, accepted the invite. On Thursday, Brian introduced the series. Here is the link:
We all have a limited knowledge and understanding of pretty much everything out there, but we do know things that each other do not, and we all have careers and specialized training that bring unique perspectives to the defense of the Christian Faith. I highly encourage all my readers to read these essays and engage the authors, not only on the Apologetics315 posts, but also on the authors' own blogs. We are eager to engage questions and challenges that, not only help guide you closer to the Truth, but also train us for carrying out The Great Commission.
Over the past few years a few people have told me that all religions are the same when they are boiled down, and there is no reason to promote my particular worldview over another. The implication of this belief is that all religions are true and lead to the same destination (universalism). For now, let's look past the fact that they just contradicted themselves (see post "The Intolerance of Tolerance") and engage one of their arguments.
Last week I discussed the danger of assumed definitions in debates and discussions. This week I want to focus on the personal danger in holding a definition that is not correct.
I have heard several atheists and agnostics say that they are looking for God but haven't found him. I have had quite a difficult time in the past understanding this claim. But then I realized (based on their objections) that they were searching for a god based on what they wanted God to be (their own definition of "God").
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.
This is another short series on the power (constructive and destructive) that definitions possess.
Something that has really been getting me lately is how people are defining "God," then say that "God" does not exist. Many of the objections by atheists to God's existence come in this form. The problem with this is that if someone where to say, "there is obviously evil in this world. God would not allow evil to exist. Therefore, God does not exist," they are making this exact mistake.
It is really quite amazing how much I hear about being "tolerant." In today's "politically correct"/"don't offend anyone" culture, it really is not surprising.
Someone told me the other day that I was being intolerant by voicing a certain opinion. I had to do the equivalent of a "double-take" with what I had just heard.
I asked her if she really valued "tolerance." Of course, she said yes. My next question was not met pleasantly. I asked, "Do you realize that you are being intolerant of my view by telling me that?"
It then occurred to me that "tolerance" can only be performed, but never voiced. When "tolerance" is articulated, it is hypocritical. The "tolerant" person is being intolerant of the person he is claiming is "intolerant". It can be easily demonstrated by showing that the intolerance is actually implicit in the accusation. The "tolerant" person may defend his statement by claiming that it is an observation- making it okay. At that point, I would agree that an observation by itself does not completely destroy his tolerance. However, if he mentions it, he is demonstrating that he is being intolerant of the other person's intolerance. The articulation of "tolerance" defeats its own definition.
Well, we are finally at the end of my Psychology Class series. If you want to start from the beginning, here's the link for the introduction post. If you haven't read the series, nothing in this post will make sense.
In the introduction, I promised that I would conclude by explaining my own behavior with regard to my requirement to take this class (plus two more). As I was going through the class, I noticed one peculiar thing about the psychological theorists: they would develop a theory and seemed to apply it to everyone, except themselves. The Behavioral theorists performed experiments and theorized that all behavior was the result of the environment. My question to them is simply this: "What environmental factors caused you to do the experiment?" The theorists never attempted to answer such a question. These theorists seemed to act as if they, themselves, were "immune" to or "above" their own behavioral theories. I've noticed this with some other theorists in other disciplines, but I won't go into those right now. This is why I felt that it is important that after I posted the series, that I analyze myself based on what I have posted.
Last week I discussed the recognition of Defense Mechanisms. This week is the final submission that I made in the class. It was the final "Reflect on Learning" assignment. Here it is:
In Part 9 I provided a primer for this week's post (if you haven't read it, you might get lost on this one). This post is another "Reflection on Learning" assignment. As before, the question is in red. Let's get right to it:
Immortality is a book that I have wanted to read for quite some time. Wanted to read it to be familiar with the different arguments for the existence of life after death. The book did not disappoint.
Habermas and Moreland wrote this book at a lay level that we all can easily access; however, they have much information and arguments that will challenge those at a higher level. They provide their arguments then discussion and critique the strongest objections and opposing views. They are really good about defining their terms, which I really appreciated. When they make distinctions, they don't just make up a new term, they provide a reason behind the distinction. The writing style was very smooth and did not put me to sleep. The content kept me pausing every so often to add my own commentary (whether agreeing or disagreeing). I found myself, on several occasions, working through the logic of a conclusion before they presented the flow. That kept me quite engaged. So, what was the content that was so great?
In Parts 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 I talked about an interesting interaction between the emotions and reason. Next week I will post another "Reflection on Learning" that details the results of letting emotions lead one down the wrong path. But before I can do that, I need to provide extra info that needs its own post. The contents of this post were not submitted in my class, it is just to bring you up to speed, so that you won't be lost next week.
In the third week of class we discussed Defense Mechanisms. Some of you might already be familiar with the term and what it is, but for those who aren't...
About four weeks ago, I posted a forum post from my PSY300 class (start back at the intro to the series if you have no clue what I'm talking about). The last three weeks have been spent posting charts to help explain the processes described in that forum post. While finishing the writing of last week's post (just a few minutes ago), I noticed an answer to challenge from atheists to theistic moral argument for God's existence- "Can I be good without God?" After I finish with this tangent, I'll get back on track.
For the last couple weeks, I have been posting charts describing the discussion in Part 4. Last week I posted a chart showing assumptions that must be made before we can make reliable observation about the world around. I also demonstrated how emotions can sabotage this process. I explained how the updated chart connected to the chart from the previous week. Finally, I pointed out that all paths lead to an end point of either a true belief or a false belief. This will be the final set of charts for this series. I will have one more post describing some implications of the processes on these charts next week. Then I will continue posting material submitted to my psychology class the week after.
Last week I posted a chart to help explain the critical part emotions play in our cognitive processes. These charts map out the discussion in Part 4. This week's chart will show the flow from required assumptions to reliable observations.
In Part 4 I discussed how emotions and reason interact in the brain. I had mentioned that to really communicate what I was thinking, I would have to do the "nerdy" thing and create a flowchart....well, I did. :) You will want to read Part 4 as a refresher before continuing.
In Part 3 I posted the first of my "Reflection on Learning" assignments that I saw as pertinent to the discussion. Today will be a post that I placed in the class forum about a simple comment my professor made in the previous session. I started it out with quite a bit of context for the benefit of the other students, so I won't go into it up here.
In Part 2 I gave a clarification of my first essay (Part 1). Each week, the professor would ask us a question about what we learned; she called it a "Reflection on Learning." These were supposed to be short (max 400 words). I asked her if she would allow me more space to develop my thoughts more effectively; she had no problem with that request (thank God!).
This is "Reflection on Learning" from the second week (I didn't include the first in this series because it didn't include anything I haven't already posted).
Since it was not required to be in any specific format (APA), I did include some links. The section in red is the question posed.
In Part 1 I discussed the four primary perspectives in Psychology. That essay was submitted before any interaction with the professor.
The feedback of my essay is the context for the majority of what I have in this post
In her feedback, the professor noted some areas that she did not understand. She was unclear what I meant by "biological cousin" when referring to the Evolutionary Perspective and two phrases in one of my sentences threw her off.
The context for the last paragraph posted here was a discussion in class- I was discussing the Cognitive Perspective and why I thought that it was superior to the other perspectives. I made the mistake of using the term "superior". She said that she did not want us to think of one perspective as more valid than or "superior" to the other perspectives, since we were just being introduced to the material and had not been exposed to evidence for and against each one.
Though it was not required of me, I replied to her feedback and criticism in an effort to clarify my points and terms.
If you haven't yet, please read the introduction to this series. It will fill you in on what you're getting into by reading this post.
Okay, this is the first essay that I wrote for my PSY-300 course. This essay was due before the first night of class, so there was no interaction with my professor before I wrote it. We had the typical reading assignment which is the main source for the material. I start out with a quick description of what Psychology is, then I describe the four primary perspectives that drive the discipline. We were not required to provide a critique of them, but I did anyway. As I mentioned in the introduction post, this was originally written in APA format, so I have edited it for emphasis and hyperlinks to help you along. Please follow the links if you want to get a tighter grasp of what I am talking about.
In my efforts to finally obtain my degree in Computer Science I have been forced to take a couple detours. I found out earlier this year that I needed to take about four more classes than I originally anticipated when I enrolled. They told me that I had to take a few more electives, so I was quite ticked off (there goes another four months of time and another $4K down the crapper). I wasn't happy about the choices I had either. None of them had anything to do with my degree (like most electives). Psychology courses were available options, so I figured that I might give it a shot. (I had tried a psychology course earlier in college and almost failed it). Little did I realize just what was going on.
Lately I've been reading a few books about raising kids, specifically about the father's role. One of the many common themes in them is that you must teach your kids not only by verbal instruction and correction, but also by example. They all stress that even if we are not active in any of those three, we are still teaching. Our children watch us intently and learn from everything we do and don't do, whether we intend to teach or not. This kind of behavior by children is recognized all over the psychological community. Kids do because we do, even though they may not have a deeper reason.
Thanksgiving is another holiday (see my previous post about Halloween) that I see has lost a lot of its meaning in American society. I remember being taught that Thanksgiving was a time to stop and thank God for everything that he has bestowed upon us (be it material goods, health, understanding or anything- even suffering).
It seems quite difficult to do such a thing when America has abandoned belief in a personal God who affects our lives or has abandoned belief in God completely. I would hope that I would be able to see people at least showing gratitude to each other for something, but I don't even see that anymore. Instead, I see people calling it "Turkey Day", almost in an effort to remove the idea of being thankful to anyone for anything- which is a direct logical conclusion of America's narcissistic materialism ("its all about me").
I noticed something the other day. I was doing some research about some basic genetic theory (how genes are passed and expressed), and I see something that looks to be an issue for the evolutionary (macroevolutionary) paradigm. Please read last week's post "Is Evolution Repeatable?".
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".
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 "How Did It All Happen? Part 4- Evolution? Really?"). If I am talking about microevolution (see same post above), 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 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).
I heard a couple of times about a theist making the claim that the only reason that someone was an atheist was so that the atheist could do whatever he wanted without being held responsible. I've also heard an atheist complain about theists making this type of accusation. What really gets me is that the theist didn't offer anything to support his claim, and the atheist did not offer anything to support the opposite (not that he even claimed the opposite was true). Either way, both people were simply complaining about the other.
I have noticed a couple different behaviors in people. First, people who are so caught up in reality that they reduce it to a cold-hearted survivalistic, "this is reality- live with it!" world, that they forget that humanity has dignity, and the world has beauty. Second, people who are so blinded by their fantastic and utopianistic ideas of what the world could be that they forget that they live in a reality of hardship, pain, and suffering.
In Parts 1-3 I covered different types of judgment. The focus was on "discernment" and "condemnation". So, what does the Bible say about making judgments? Here's a few passages that I want to tackle:
Proverbs 3:21- "My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight."
Phillipians 1:10- "...so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ"
Matthew 7:1- "Judge not, lest you be judged."
I placed these purposely in this order because I wanted to show that both the Old and New Testament condone judging. The question is though, which one ("discernment" or "condemnation") does "judge" mean in these?
This post is going to build upon two of my other posts: "Positive Arguments vs. Negative Arguments" and "This Argument is Full of Crap!" Please read both of those (even if you already have), so that the material is fresh in your mind and connections among all three posts can be easily made.
Let me start this review by letting you know why I wanted to read "Thrilled to Death". Ravi Zacharias is one of my favorite apologists for the Christian faith. Many times I have heard him state that, in general, today's society's people are depressed not because they are weary of pain, but are weary of pleasure. I had always thought that this was just an opinion based on some careful observation. However, I was listening to Focus on the Family's podcast about marriage (James Dobson on Marriage) and heard psychologist Dr. Archibald Hart talking about the pleasure center of our brains and how over-stimulation of that pleasure center can cause it to become "accustomed" to the level of pleasure and the never-ending higher levels that are required to maintain a feeling of pleasure. I was quite interested since this seems to be scientific evidence of what Ravi Zacharias was claiming. So I got the book.
I finished Part 2 with the idea that if condemnation cannot be an option in a situation, then neither can praise be an option. This also goes the other direction.
Just to make sure that I'm being clear about "option", I'm talking about before evidence pointing one way or the other is presented. If the situation is deemed to allow one, then it must also allow the other. If one option is available, then both are. The evidence provided after the initial determination of possible options will then determine which option is the correct one to administer.
In Part 1, I established a few definitions and synonyms for the word "judge". "Discern" is not really controversial. Neither is "exonerate"; however, "condemn" is quite controversial. So, I'll tackle that in this post and the next.
I want to start out this review by saying that I really enjoyed this book.Carey Casey the the president of the National Fatherhood Institute and has been a chaplin for almost every NFL team at some point. He wrote this book to combine his experience as a father himself with players' experiences as both fathers and children along with his research.
Not too long ago I came across a person who told me that what was true for me was not true for him, and what's true for him may not be true for me. This would not be a big deal, if we were talking about the best burrito in the fast-food industry. But we weren't; we were discussing reality. Specifically, religion and beliefs.
Let me start by defining truth. Truth is a notion or idea that accurately describes reality as it is.
There are two categories that truth falls under. First, you have "relative truth". "Relative truth" is a truth like what my friend was promoting. A relative truth is one that can conflict with another, yet not cause any issues. These tend to be matters of opinion, perspective, and taste- such as one's preference for Taco Bell over KFC, while someone else can hold it the other way around. Have you ever heard someone say "Its freezing in here!", while the person standing right next to them says, "Are you nuts?! Its burning up in here!" The temperature (freezing or burning) of the room is a relative truth.
Second, you have "objective truth". This is a truth that is true whether someone believes it or not, proves it or not, or observes it or not. 1+1=2 would be an example of one of these truths. Two opposing claims in the same context cannot be both objectively true. Only one can be true. Now, many can be false (1+1=3; 1+1=4.2; etc...), but only one can be true.
Many people like to deny the existence of the second type of truth because by definition, it is quite intolerant of false notions (and labels them quite noticeably) and is exclusivistic. "Exclusivistic" means that it alone is true, and no other opposing claim (in the same context) can be true. It seems to me that in today's global society we want so badly to "get along" that we are willing to compromise the very notion of truth itself to accomplish it.
Unfortunately, for these people, the Law of Noncontradiction stands in the way. This law states that no two opposing claims can be true simultaneously in the same context. Anytime that someone attempts to escape this law, they affirm it. The way an escape is attempted is to simply say that it is incorrect- one does not need to try to justify it because it has already failed. The way the attempt at an escape has failed is that the person making the claim- that the law is incorrect- is saying that the opposite (contradiction) is not correct in the same context. The Law of Noncontradiction is an example of an inescapable objective truth.
This is why I always urge people to do their best to make sure that when they debate someone, they understand the other's position. If the two of you are debating an objective truth, but don't define a few things (establishing the context), then you could be debating when realizing that the fact that you are referring to different contexts is the solution to the problem. Part of establishing context is to avoid a strawman argument (I discussed this in my post "Misengaged in Battle") and defining your terms (I'll go more in depth on this one later in a series of posts).
Objective truths are debated all the time in philosophy and theology. The most popular example is if there is a God or not. Another (less popular, but related) is if objective morals exist or not. Here's one that gets the emotional juices going- are all religions true or not?- or in another way- do all religions eventually lead to God (if He even exists) or not?
The different disciplines of science also search for objective truths. However, different from philosophy and theology, science focuses on the objective truths of nature. Please see my post "Consistency Among Disciplines" for more.
All of these truths (either from philosophy or science) are either true for everybody or they are false for everybody, regardless of anybody's opinion, perspective, or taste.
I have found that in a debate, it is crucial to establish if agreement exists between the parties as to whether or not the topic being debated is a "relative truth" or an "objective truth". If a topic is actually a "relative truth", then there really is no sense in debating (neither side will be held responsible for disagreeing with the other). If it is an "objective truth" then whoever is wrong (not, necessarily, who "wins" the debate) must recognize that the he will be subjected to the implications of disagreeing with the true side of the debate.
Ravi Zacharias gave a talk called The Basis for Truth. This talk was recently provided on Just Thinking. Here are the episodes:
I was reading through the Q&A's on Reasonablefaith.comand came across one in which a reader took issue with William Lane Craig's claim that the atheistic worldview is one without hope. The reader believes that the atheist does have hope. Craig recognized the unique argument then went on to defend his statement. Please read the Q&A here (may require registration, I don't remember) for the complete context of this post.
It appears that the validity of Craig's statement stands on what the hope is in. All hope requires an object of that hope, otherwise it is an empty, meaningless word. If someone tells me that they offer me "hope", my first question is, "okay...hope for what?"
When we're talking about what comes after death, the "hope" that people refer to is the same hope that everyone has- to escape the pain and suffering of this life. Everyone has different forms of this hope, but it boils down to that. Let's look at some of the different "hopes" offered (these are greatly simplified for the purposes of this post, please don't flame me about it):
The atheist's hope is to go immediately into nonexistence after death. That would mean no experience of anything, including pain and suffering and even punishment or reward (more on this specifically in a future post "Atheism And The Escape From Responsibility"). Nothing good is experienced either, as a result of the nonexistence.
The hope offered by many eastern religions is that one will eventually (after many lives) be either absorbed into everything and not experience anything individually or be totally extinguished and not experience anything. Either way, the individual escapes the experience of pain and suffering, however neither is anything good experienced.
The three major theistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) offer hope of living without pain and suffering. The experiences of pain and suffering are gone while only the experiences of good remain. (See my post "Suffering Sucks...or Does It?" (specifically, the audio clip from Hugh Ross) for why pain and suffering are required to even recognize experiences of only good).
I would like to submit that the hope offered by the theistic religions is much more desirable than those of atheism or the eastern religions. Here's why. Life is full of many wonderful experiences and emotions. Life is also full of much painful suffering. I do not know a single person who would not want to leave all the painful stuff behind and only experience the good stuff. That is the hope offered by the theistic religions. But...
...What differentiates these is the method to obtain that hope. In Judaism and Islam the person must earn their hope by their behavior. If they are not more good than bad, they don't have the hope offered by their religion. In Christianity, it is recognized that the standard of "good" can not (can: the ability to; not: the negation of) be obtained by us humans. Jesus Christ offers himself in our place of having to meet the standard of "good"; He even takes it a step further and takes our place for everything bad that we did, so we don't have to endure the punishment. In Christianity, all we have to do is recognize that what Christ has offered to us is the only possible way to obtain the life promised (that does mean swallowing our pride and recognizing that we are not as independent as we would like to be) and accept that offer.
This post is starting to get a little on the longer side, so I want to make a couple quick statements and recognitions of what might be going through your mind.
To keep the flow of the post somewhat smooth, I did not mention explicitly anything about the realities of two competing hopes being able to coexist. I affirm that two realities described by two competing hopes can not coexist (the realities described by the eastern hope and theistic hope cannot both be true). As a theist (Christian specifically), I deny the "truth" offered by the eastern religions.
I recognize that "desirable" does not equal truth. Please read other posts in my blog for other reasons for my theism and how I reconcile different harsh realities of life.
Over the past several years I have been exposed to the theory of Intelligent Design (ID). William Dembski is one of the biggest proponents of this theory. One of the terms that he and other scientists use when discussing ID is "specified complexity". I had in mind an idea of what they meant by this term, but I was not completely certain. I decided to do some digging into the term and found that this book would best describe the term.
If it is not fresh on your mind, please read my previous post "Right Living or Right Thinking?" before proceeding with this series.
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged." (Matt 7:1)
This is the favorite verse in the Bible of a pluralistic and relativistic society. It is quoted so many times in an effort to keep Christians from making judgments on others for their behaviors. Today, I'm going to start a short series of discussions about judgment. I'll start with what "judgment" means.
The first meaning is "to discern". A "discernment" takes place when an individual observes (or perceives) something and makes a decision (or action) about it based on those observances. For a simple example, I may observe a ball. Based on its color, shape, and texture, I can discern that it is a football. Further, I can observe a player using the football and discern, based on my observations of his playing and my understanding of the game of football, whether or not he is a good player.
The second meaning is "to condemn". A "condemnation" takes place when an individual uses a discernment to pronounce a punishment. Let us go back to the example of the football player. For this, let's say that we discerned that the football player sucks. As a result, we decide to kick him off our team. This would be a pronouncement of punishment. "Condemnation" is a reasonable extension of "discernment".
The third meaning is "to exonerate". A "exoneration" takes place when an individual uses a discernment to pronounce a release. Back to the football player. Here he is discerned to be a valuable player. As a result, he remains on the team. This would be a pronouncement of release (from the possibility of being cut).
Both "condemnation" and "exoneration" are reasonable extensions of "discernment". But is condemnation or exoneration ever appropriate? If so, when? I will tackle those in Part 2.
This is something that has been on my mind lately. What is the relationship between choice and personal responsibility? Can one exist without the other? Which focus is more dangerous?
In today's society it seems like personal responsibility has become quite unpopular and many are trying to shove it out of society. Our litigious culture is willing to sue anyone for anything. If someone makes a mistake, they tend to point their finger at someone else. I see this at work, in the news, and at school (which really gets me). Our school system has become scared to discipline our children or hold them back due to the possibility that they might get sued by angry parents or damage the students' "self esteem". If our school system is afraid to teach our children to take personal responsibility (morally or academically), how can we expect our students to take any kind of personal responsibility when they are adults?
Let me clarify something about our schools. We have many awesome teachers who have found ways to hold students responsible regardless of the flawed system that limits their activities, and I commend them for this. However, if the system would allow students to be held directly responsible, the teachers would not have to spend so much energy on that, and instead spend more energy teaching our students.
Our government surely doesn't seem to care much; they like to institute more and more social programs that allow the public to rely on the "system" rather than taking responsibility for their own lives (I understand that sometimes people need help, so the system should allow for these situations, but only these situations).
What I find ironic, is that as our society disowns personal responsibility we clamor for more choices, more options. But, the thing is that choices have consequences that come with them. If you are given a choice between two things, normally each option has pros and cons that the other doesn't. To get the rewards of one option you must accept the consequences of not choosing the other. I will soon be faced with a choice like this. I plan on buying a new computer in the next year or so, and my options will be either a desktop or a laptop. The desktop is faster than the laptop, but does not provide the portability of a laptop. If I choose the laptop, I gain a reward (portability), but I also accept the consequence (slower speed). I don't like it, but if I want the choice I must accept one or the other. If I don't want to accept the consequences I could have someone else make the decision for me, then blame them for making the "wrong" choice. Now, this example is really trivial (no moral or life-long consequences), but it is an example that we can all see.
I see the same concept played out in much less trivial situations all over; from work to school, from leisure to relationships. Employees blame coworkers for their bad performance; students claim that professors are too tough because their grades suck; people sue fastfood chains because their health was compromised; men and women cheat on their spouse, then blame their spouse by saying that their spouse didn't meet their needs. What do all these situations have in common? Choice. The person chose to take the action that looked enticing on the surface, then refused to take personal responsibility for the consequences of that decision.
If people don't want to take personal responsibility, then why not remove options? Take choice out of the equation. If you can't choose, you're not responsible. If there are fewer choices, then social equality is closer to being realized also. With no choices, everyone is equal (no "Jones Complex" or desire) and not responsible (no stress). What could be better than that?
Many people value personal responsibility, because it is a sign of strength. Personal responsibility is perceived by others when a person has tough choices and accepts both reward and consequence of the decisions made. Strength is perceived when others realize that despite the consequences, that person made the right choice. Those who focus on personal responsibility value choice because personal responsibility is dependent on choice being available. However, those who focus on choice, value it because it gives an illusions of freedom and control.
Lack of personal responsibility is a sign of weakness. Someone who is weak is unable to make reliable decisions, and more options tend to confuse the issue more. Those who are personally responsible are then given the opportunity to take responsibility (and control) for the weaker. When control is taken, options are taken.
Choice is good, but should not be our focus. If we, as a society, focus on personal responsibility, more choices and fewer consequences will follow. We will remain in control and have true freedom. If we, as a society, do not focus on personal responsibility, we will see our choices dwindle into the hands of those who do focus on personal responsibility- we lose our choices, our strength and eventually, our self-respect.
I have come across several people who have told me that right practice (orthopraxy) is more important than right beliefs (orthodoxy). We're all familiar with the phrase "You can talk the 'talk', but can you walk the 'walk'?" In terms of "orthodoxy" and "orthopraxy" it is, "You may have orthodoxy, but do you have orthpraxy?" These same people interpret this to mean that orthopraxy is more important that orthodoxy. I disagree.
Right Living (Orthopraxy) presupposes Right Thinking (Orthodoxy). 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.
