While this question at the outset seems to be fairly simple and straight forward, it is actually quite intricate and complex. As with almost any dialogue regarding an issue, we must first precisely define that which we are talking about. In this current discussion, we must define freedom of the will. Everyone believes something about free will, but it is surprising how varied the personal definitions are that we carry around with us. With this in mind, we have endeavored to come up with a definition that will be accepted by most everyone, and we will use this definition to analyze the question at hand.
For one to have a free will, they must at least have the ability to choose that which they desire. If one desires to have cake, but there is no cake available, they are not free to choose cake. However, if one desires to have ice cream, and they have the ability to eat the ice cream they desire, then they have the freedom to do so. It is fairly simple and straight forward. However, having the simple ability to do what one wants or desires is not enough for some to consider one to have free will. Often there will be the added requirement that one have the option to do the opposite of what they desire as well. For example, if a person desires to go for a run and they have the ability to do so, we might say they are acting according to their free will. However, what if this same person on their run begins to be chased by a neighborhood dog? This takes away the option to stop running had they wanted to. The question of them wanting to stop is no longer permissible, for they are now required to do what they would have desired to do anyway. But their freedom in doing so is now removed, since they are compelled to act accordingly. Thus we will say that free will requires two things: The ability to do what one desires and the option to do the opposite of what they desire.
As a Christian, my viewpoint on this question is drastically different from how I viewed it when I was an atheist. For an atheist, the concept of God is unacceptable. Thus to entertain the possibility that God has a free will is pointless. Meanwhile a person has a free will up to a certain point. Their free will is completely dictated by the physical world around them. If there is no God, people must either directly or indirectly control their own desires, or else they are formed during some random set of events that occur outside of their control. These desires dictate how much of a free will they will be able to enjoy. If they desire to partake in unaided human flight, they will not be free to do so. If they desire to purchase a computer, they may be free to do so only if their circumstances allow it. Do they have enough money? Is there a store nearby with the computer they want? Do they have the transportation to go to the store? If they answer yes to all the necessary questions, then they are free to get the computer. The decisions an atheist makes during their life directly affect the freedoms they are able to enjoy. If they make decisions that allow them to obtain material goods and resources, they will have more freedom. If they make decisions that allow them to gain more power and authority, they will also obtain more freedom. Freedom is entirely dictated by the physical possibilities available to the individual.
Often times, the atheist will put forth an argument refuting the free will of God if the Judeo-Christian God were to in fact exist. It may well help our purpose here to address some of these arguments. This will help our understanding of the atheistic mindset, and also help us to defend our stance as Christians that God does indeed have freedom of the will.
Argument 1: An Omniscient (all-knowing) Being Does Not Have Free Will
The argument looks something like this. If you are all-knowing, you know your future actions perfectly. Furthermore, you cannot change your future actions, otherwise your future knowledge about these actions would be wrong and you would cease to be omniscient. Therefore, you are mandated to do what you know will happen in the future, and thus you are not able to act freely.
This argument, while convincing, lacks critical insight into the nature of God. We know that God created all things. If God created all things, then He necessarily created time. The creator of something also must exist outside of that very thing. Therefore God exists outside of time. God is eternal. He is not governed by time as we are. Thus term “future actions” and the knowledge of them do not apply to God. It is difficult, indeed impossible, for us to completely understand how an eternal God views a universe that is encased within the dimensions of time. But we can come to terms with the fact that God must see all things past, present and future “instantaneously”. Therefore, God’s perfect plan was completely laid out by Him before time began, now, and forever. Would He choose to change it? If He would choose to change it, then it wouldn’t have been perfect in the first place. Could He be forced to change it? If so, then He would not be all powerful. Thus God’s omniscience does not limit God’s free will.
Argument 2: A Perfect or Moral God Has No Free Will
Out of the possible options in any situation, God will always make the best choice because He is perfectly benevolent or good. God cannot do something that is less moral or “good” than something else or else He would not be perfectly good. So, in every situation, God has only one choice: the most moral choice possible. Thus, it is argued, God cannot have free will, since He is incapable of making moral choices. There are no possibilities to choose from, only the best moral option. Similarly, a perfect God cannot choose a less than perfect option. If He did, that would make God less than perfect. But by simple definition, there can only be one perfect option. Thus God’s choice in the matter is always predetermined, and this prevents God from having free will.
Part of what this argument puts forth is true. God will always make the perfect and moral choice. What is not true in the argument is that somehow God is externally forced to make such choices. To see this, a strong personal analogy might be helpful.
One of the most foundational basic desires of a person is the desire for self preservation. In the absence of external influences or deep emotional pain, a person would always choose to live rather than die. Now let us assume that a man who has none of these external influences affecting his actions finds himself in possession of a cyanide capsule. He knows that by choosing to swallow the capsule, he will certainly die. If he chooses to not swallow the capsule, he will live a normal life. Under the presupposition that there are no external or internal influences that would interrupt his natural desire for self preservation, would the man choose to swallow the pill and kill himself? Of course he would not! He would always choose to neglect the cyanide and live peacefully. It is the better choice according to the disposition of man in the absence of certain influences.
Now it is true that perhaps the man could succumb to external pressures, or emotional depression. Men are always susceptible to such things, but God is not! God is both perfect and all powerful. No such “outside” sources can affect His judgments. His perfect power would always allow Him to choose the option He would optimally choose. And since God is immutable, that is since God does not change from one time to the next, He will always choose the same optimal option. God is not required to choose these things any more than the man in the analogy is required not to take the cyanide. But to somehow say God is incapable of free will just because He simply does not choose the lesser option in the absence of a reason to do so is quite unreasonable.
There are other arguments that one might put forward against God having free will that are similarly refuted. Each argument will take one attribute of God, his being all-powerful or all-good for example, and use these individually to refute His free will. But it is only in the context of the entire person of God and all of His attributes that we can fully understand how and why it is that God has free will. It is here that we must pause, however. Just because we have shown flaws in arguments that claim God has no free will, that does not mean that we have shown that God does indeed have free will. Let us consider that claim now.
First we must ask if God can choose to do that which He desires. It is clear that God must be able to do anything, for He is all powerful. If He were not able to do whatever He desired, that would mean that something was preventing Him from acting accordingly and would instantly remove His status of being all powerful. The more difficult part of this argument is to determine whether or not God is able to choose that which is opposite to His desire. We must first extrapolate this question to ourselves. If we were to desire something, what would prevent us from acting accordingly? First, we might find our circumstances such that they prohibit such action. If we desire food but there is no food present, we cannot eat. Second, we might have contradicting desires that must be weighed. I might desire to go camping the same weekend as my brother’s wedding, but my desire to not be severely disciplined by my mother would outweigh my desire to go camping. In this way we might find ourselves doing things that are not those which we desire.
Can these situations apply to God? We must say no. First, God could never be restricted by circumstances outside of His control simply because He is in control of all things. Second, while God does have desires that conflict, He has desires which, in His immutability, are consistently stronger than others. For example, God desires all people to act righteously all the time, but He also desires for us to make the free choice to follow His righteous ways on our own accord. God could have made every man and woman to act perfectly our whole lives, without ever deviating from a set script. However, God’s desire that we have free will and the ability to choose to follow him was greater than His desire for us to behave all the time. Thus He chooses to allow us to make mistakes and act unrighteously.
God is also all powerful. He cannot be constrained by physical limitations. He is always free to do what he desires. Then we must ask the question, “What does God desire most?” Here we will see that God desires to glorify Himself! But isn’t that selfish? Perhaps it might seem that way. That is until we look at the alternative. Who or what else is more deserving of glorification? It is obvious that if God is real, then it would be necessary that God would be most deserving of glorification.
At this point we have seen that there is ample reason to believe God indeed has free will. But there may still be confusion. There are many “gotcha” questions floating around out there in academia that are often used against God. Some may ask, “Can God create a rock so big He cannot lift it?” Others will say, “If God can’t lie, then he can’t be all powerful!” There are many others, and the reality of the situation is that there will always be another such question around the corner. The answers to all such questions though do no not need to limit God’s omnipotence, omniscience, or any of His other attributes. Rather God’s attributes are the answers to these questions. Because God is who He is, he is free to choose according to His nature at all times. He will not contradict Himself. He does not have to. He will not do anything less than perfect. He has no reason to. He will never choose to do evil, for there is no power on heaven or on earth that could ever compel him even to entertain the idea. It is not that God doesn’t have the free will to do so, He just will never be compelled to act anything that is contradictory to his nature. And God, by His very nature, is good.
Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?
It is such a difficult question, one that triggers a watershed of emotions. Why do bad things happen to good people? It evokes the deepest sense of despair and the greatest surge of anger. We all have past experiences that force us to ask this question. Maybe it happened to us personally. Maybe it happened to a loved one or a friend. It could be that it happened to someone that we greatly respected and admired. The fact of the matter is that hardship exists in this world, and since no one is immune, it will ultimately effect every one of us.
So why does it happen? What is the Christian answer? What is the true answer? There is actually a very simple and concise answer that I claim is true that will leave most everyone vastly unsatisfied while working them into an emotionally provoked frenzy. I will offer that answer here, and attempt to defend it using critical reasoning and thought.
So why do bad things happen to good people?
Answer: They don't.
It really is that simple! But, one is probably asking at this point, what about Uncle Bob who died of cancer!? What about little Susie who suffered that horrible accident last year? What about the genocide in Darfur or the victims of 911 or the tsunami? These are valid and honest questions that need to be considered. But before I move on, I would like to try to take an objective step back and try to separate the sticky mess that is the difference between reason and rhetoric.
When asking a question, one is most often looking for a reasonable response. In most fields of academia, if the answer is not reasonable, it is rejected outright. If the question is substantially difficult, it would take a fair amount of time and clear thinking to arrive at a valid answer. However, in areas that are more conversational, often times our validation for our reasoning comes not from clear, precise thinking, but rather from a vast sea of emotional rhetoric or story telling. It is easy to see this in politics, where name calling and evoking emotions from the masses is more important than actually provoking thought from the audience. J.P. Moreland puts it very well when he says:
"Because of the mindlessness in our culture, people do not persuade others of their views (religious or otherwise) on the basis of argument and reason, but rather, by expressing emotional rhetoric and politically correct buzzwords. Reason has given way to rhetoric, evidence to emotion, substance to slogan, the speach writer to the makeup man, and rational authority (the right to command compliance and to be believed) to social power (the ability to coerce compliance and outward conformance). Rhetoric without reason, persuasion without argument is manipulation"
It is my goal to give a reason for why bad things happen to good people... or rather why bad things don't happen to good people... without delving into the sea of emotional rhetoric that could easily accompany such an answer.
To answer any question, one must always be able to determine what it is the question is asking. In order to answer our question here, we first need to make sure we understand it. What is good? What is bad? How do these characteristics translate to things and people?
One might be tempted to say that good is simply the opposite of bad, and bad is the opposite of good. But this would be a redundant non-definition of the terms. It would only succeed in defining good and bad as opposites and nothing more. One would be able to substitute the words "up" and "down" into the statement while not changing its meaning. So we might be able to say that the state of "being good" is simply the absense of "being bad", but then we must venture to define what it means to be bad.
At this point is should be mentioned that the terms "good" and "bad" have no non-relative meaning if we are to deny the existence of some transcendant being or god that has somehow designed our universe to function in a certain way. The atheist may make claims regarding what is right, good, wrong and bad, but one would only have to ask the quesion "who says?" to see that they have no grounds on which to base their assumptions. If there is no god, there is no right or wrong, and there is not good or bad. I would argue that this flies in the face of what all mankind knows to be true. It is wrong to torture and dismember infants for enjoyment. It is wrong to say that a square is at the same time a circle. There are certain things that we must admit are wrong, that are bad. But how do we categorize such things absolutely?
Christianity of course offers a way to categorize what is bad and what is good in the Bible. Many other world religions also have their own methods of deciding what is right and wrong. There are some that are generally accepted by secular society as well, and I will strive to deal with these. Lying is generally accepted to be wrong or bad. When you are sworn in to any courtroom, you are expected to tell the truth. To lie is quantitatively and qualitatively bad. General selfishness is also seen by all mankind as something to be avoided, while selflessness is a virtue.
If we accept lying and selfishness to be objectively bad, then we can start to evaluate what it means to be a good person. Take, for example, the human body. A body is said to be healthy, or "good", if it is free from defect or illness. Once one part of the body becomes ill, the entire self is called sick, or "bad". If you have an upset stomach to the point of vomiting, you would no longer say that your bodily situation is good, but your head and your extremeties might be in good health. In fact, the vast majority of your body might be healthy, but you are still in bad health.
The same could be said about a mathematical proof. The proof might be ten pages in length, and it might generally be flawless. But if there is one statement on page five that is false, then the entire proof must be rejected. It is a bad argument. A good mathematicall or logical argument MUST be free from any bad logic. If even one bad statment exists in the larger framework, the entire argument is bad and must be thrown out.
So what does it mean to be a "good person"? We have already decided that selfishness and lying are to be considered "bad". If we are to consider good people to be those people that are entirely free of anything bad, then we must drastically reduce our pool of potentially "good" people to those that have never lied and that have never been selfish! With those two requirements alone, we must admit that it would be difficult to find such a person. I would go so far as to make the claim that such a person does not actually exist, and we don't even have to name other characteristics or actions that we might consider bad.
If it is the case then that there are no actual "good" people, then we might as well ask why bad things happen to flying pigs. We can rightfully answer that they don't. We can also answer that GOOD things don't happen to flying pigs! That is because flying pigs don't exist! So it seems also that good people do not exist, and bad things can not happen to those that do not exist.
Now there may be that subgroup of humanity that prefers to look at good and bad as relative terms, similar to tall and short. One might believe they are a good person simply because they are not Hitler. Another might try to do good things most of the time, and they think that makes them a good person. But what measuring stick are we to use to make such statements across the board? Again, a measuring stick would only exist if there is a way that the universe and mankind were created and designed to function. But if we were designed in such a way, then anything short of that design would be falling short of that measuring stick. Good and bad, in this sense, are not relative but are rather absolute terms capable of being measured. The problem is that everyone seems to fall short.
The Christian perspective:
Up until this point I have taken care to leave the Christian worldview out of the discussion. I have done this so that the argument above would sill relate effectively to all people, whether Christian or non-Christian. But there are many Biblical passages that lend support to the argument above.
When the rich young man approached Jesus and called him "good" Jesus responded by asking "Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone." (Luke 18:19) God sets the precedent as to what is good. In fact, the Bible says that "God is good". The Bible also states clearly what it seems we already know, that we have all fallen short of that goodness, that we have all sinned, that we are all bad people when we come to see the true measuring stick of God's goodness and God's holiness.
It would be incorrect to say that bad things have never happened to good people. There has been one, and only one, good person ever to inhabit this planet. He was never selfish, he never lied, he never lusted, and he never fell short of the glory of God. That man was Jesus. And because he was good, he was the only man that did not deserve evil or punishment. He received both, but not for his own sins, for he had none. Rather, he willfully received the wrath of God on OUR behalf. He was the only good man that bad things happened to, and according to the Bible, he did so because of your "badness", so that you might receive the grace and goodness of God again.
In our narcissistic society, we ultimately feel as though we are entiteled to and deserve good things. Somehow we think we are genuinely entitled to all things good, while at the same time we believe we don't deserve anything bad. This is quite contrary to the truth of scripture, where we are told that, because of our sins and our "badness", we deserve all evils that befall us. It is by God's great mercy that we have anything good happen to us at all!!
In fact, I would put forth a new question. Rather than ask why bad things happen to good people (since there are no good people), I would ask why good things happen to bad people!! This question has no reasonable answer, but it does have an anwer. And that answer is God's magnificent grace and mercy. Instead of asking "why do I suffer so!?!", we might take a step back and ask... "why doesn't the entire world suffer this same fate, even though we all deserve it?!?"
The answer is God's incredible mercy, and His amazing grace.
So why does it happen? What is the Christian answer? What is the true answer? There is actually a very simple and concise answer that I claim is true that will leave most everyone vastly unsatisfied while working them into an emotionally provoked frenzy. I will offer that answer here, and attempt to defend it using critical reasoning and thought.
So why do bad things happen to good people?
Answer: They don't.
It really is that simple! But, one is probably asking at this point, what about Uncle Bob who died of cancer!? What about little Susie who suffered that horrible accident last year? What about the genocide in Darfur or the victims of 911 or the tsunami? These are valid and honest questions that need to be considered. But before I move on, I would like to try to take an objective step back and try to separate the sticky mess that is the difference between reason and rhetoric.
When asking a question, one is most often looking for a reasonable response. In most fields of academia, if the answer is not reasonable, it is rejected outright. If the question is substantially difficult, it would take a fair amount of time and clear thinking to arrive at a valid answer. However, in areas that are more conversational, often times our validation for our reasoning comes not from clear, precise thinking, but rather from a vast sea of emotional rhetoric or story telling. It is easy to see this in politics, where name calling and evoking emotions from the masses is more important than actually provoking thought from the audience. J.P. Moreland puts it very well when he says:
"Because of the mindlessness in our culture, people do not persuade others of their views (religious or otherwise) on the basis of argument and reason, but rather, by expressing emotional rhetoric and politically correct buzzwords. Reason has given way to rhetoric, evidence to emotion, substance to slogan, the speach writer to the makeup man, and rational authority (the right to command compliance and to be believed) to social power (the ability to coerce compliance and outward conformance). Rhetoric without reason, persuasion without argument is manipulation"
It is my goal to give a reason for why bad things happen to good people... or rather why bad things don't happen to good people... without delving into the sea of emotional rhetoric that could easily accompany such an answer.
To answer any question, one must always be able to determine what it is the question is asking. In order to answer our question here, we first need to make sure we understand it. What is good? What is bad? How do these characteristics translate to things and people?
One might be tempted to say that good is simply the opposite of bad, and bad is the opposite of good. But this would be a redundant non-definition of the terms. It would only succeed in defining good and bad as opposites and nothing more. One would be able to substitute the words "up" and "down" into the statement while not changing its meaning. So we might be able to say that the state of "being good" is simply the absense of "being bad", but then we must venture to define what it means to be bad.
At this point is should be mentioned that the terms "good" and "bad" have no non-relative meaning if we are to deny the existence of some transcendant being or god that has somehow designed our universe to function in a certain way. The atheist may make claims regarding what is right, good, wrong and bad, but one would only have to ask the quesion "who says?" to see that they have no grounds on which to base their assumptions. If there is no god, there is no right or wrong, and there is not good or bad. I would argue that this flies in the face of what all mankind knows to be true. It is wrong to torture and dismember infants for enjoyment. It is wrong to say that a square is at the same time a circle. There are certain things that we must admit are wrong, that are bad. But how do we categorize such things absolutely?
Christianity of course offers a way to categorize what is bad and what is good in the Bible. Many other world religions also have their own methods of deciding what is right and wrong. There are some that are generally accepted by secular society as well, and I will strive to deal with these. Lying is generally accepted to be wrong or bad. When you are sworn in to any courtroom, you are expected to tell the truth. To lie is quantitatively and qualitatively bad. General selfishness is also seen by all mankind as something to be avoided, while selflessness is a virtue.
If we accept lying and selfishness to be objectively bad, then we can start to evaluate what it means to be a good person. Take, for example, the human body. A body is said to be healthy, or "good", if it is free from defect or illness. Once one part of the body becomes ill, the entire self is called sick, or "bad". If you have an upset stomach to the point of vomiting, you would no longer say that your bodily situation is good, but your head and your extremeties might be in good health. In fact, the vast majority of your body might be healthy, but you are still in bad health.
The same could be said about a mathematical proof. The proof might be ten pages in length, and it might generally be flawless. But if there is one statement on page five that is false, then the entire proof must be rejected. It is a bad argument. A good mathematicall or logical argument MUST be free from any bad logic. If even one bad statment exists in the larger framework, the entire argument is bad and must be thrown out.
So what does it mean to be a "good person"? We have already decided that selfishness and lying are to be considered "bad". If we are to consider good people to be those people that are entirely free of anything bad, then we must drastically reduce our pool of potentially "good" people to those that have never lied and that have never been selfish! With those two requirements alone, we must admit that it would be difficult to find such a person. I would go so far as to make the claim that such a person does not actually exist, and we don't even have to name other characteristics or actions that we might consider bad.
If it is the case then that there are no actual "good" people, then we might as well ask why bad things happen to flying pigs. We can rightfully answer that they don't. We can also answer that GOOD things don't happen to flying pigs! That is because flying pigs don't exist! So it seems also that good people do not exist, and bad things can not happen to those that do not exist.
Now there may be that subgroup of humanity that prefers to look at good and bad as relative terms, similar to tall and short. One might believe they are a good person simply because they are not Hitler. Another might try to do good things most of the time, and they think that makes them a good person. But what measuring stick are we to use to make such statements across the board? Again, a measuring stick would only exist if there is a way that the universe and mankind were created and designed to function. But if we were designed in such a way, then anything short of that design would be falling short of that measuring stick. Good and bad, in this sense, are not relative but are rather absolute terms capable of being measured. The problem is that everyone seems to fall short.
The Christian perspective:
Up until this point I have taken care to leave the Christian worldview out of the discussion. I have done this so that the argument above would sill relate effectively to all people, whether Christian or non-Christian. But there are many Biblical passages that lend support to the argument above.
When the rich young man approached Jesus and called him "good" Jesus responded by asking "Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone." (Luke 18:19) God sets the precedent as to what is good. In fact, the Bible says that "God is good". The Bible also states clearly what it seems we already know, that we have all fallen short of that goodness, that we have all sinned, that we are all bad people when we come to see the true measuring stick of God's goodness and God's holiness.
It would be incorrect to say that bad things have never happened to good people. There has been one, and only one, good person ever to inhabit this planet. He was never selfish, he never lied, he never lusted, and he never fell short of the glory of God. That man was Jesus. And because he was good, he was the only man that did not deserve evil or punishment. He received both, but not for his own sins, for he had none. Rather, he willfully received the wrath of God on OUR behalf. He was the only good man that bad things happened to, and according to the Bible, he did so because of your "badness", so that you might receive the grace and goodness of God again.
In our narcissistic society, we ultimately feel as though we are entiteled to and deserve good things. Somehow we think we are genuinely entitled to all things good, while at the same time we believe we don't deserve anything bad. This is quite contrary to the truth of scripture, where we are told that, because of our sins and our "badness", we deserve all evils that befall us. It is by God's great mercy that we have anything good happen to us at all!!
In fact, I would put forth a new question. Rather than ask why bad things happen to good people (since there are no good people), I would ask why good things happen to bad people!! This question has no reasonable answer, but it does have an anwer. And that answer is God's magnificent grace and mercy. Instead of asking "why do I suffer so!?!", we might take a step back and ask... "why doesn't the entire world suffer this same fate, even though we all deserve it?!?"
The answer is God's incredible mercy, and His amazing grace.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
How do you KNOW Christianity is true?
It may be the single most prevalent question regarding Christianity. How do you know Christianity is true? This question also implicitly asks "how do you know all the other religions are false?"
Whether you are a Christian or of some other religious persuasion, chances are that you've had this thought yourselves or had it posed to you. The Christian will usually respond with a fairly short answer. They may refer to their upbringing in the Church, the teachings of the Bible, or their first hand experience. While these reasons may well be true and subjectively validate their own faith, they often leave the questioner vastly unsatisfied, often to the point of frustration. So what is the answer? What is the source of their frustration? How does a Christian respond?
Unfortunately, there is not an easy or quick answer. The question itself is loaded with presuppositions and assumptions that must be addressed first if any reasonable answer is to be given. Moreover, it may be the case that the questioner does not even wish to gain a reasonable response, but they rather wish to take an intellectual jab at what they see as an ignorant belief system. But even if that is the case, it is my firm conviction that the question allows the Christian to address many false assumptions that the questioner may carry while being gracious and loving.
It should be first noted that the question is not primarily one about Christianity. It is instead a question about knowledge itself! "How do you KNOW...?" There is a field of philosophy called epistomology which deals exclusively with these sorts of questions. We must all come to our own conclusions and answers to these very basic questions. How do we know anything? What is it exactly that we know? What constitutes knowledge? All of these questions are being indirectly addressed when someone asks "How do you know Christianity is true?"
There are two questions which seem to create a bit of a problem. The first being "what do we know?" and the second being "how do we know what we know?". It would appear that before we can move forward regarding questions of knowledge, we would need to answer these two questions. But if we venture to give an answer to the first question, say that we know snow is white, we would then need to ask ourselves how we knew that in the first place! So we would be needing to assume an answer to the second question in order to answer the first. On the other hand if we try to answer the second question, say that we know things by observation, then we claim that we KNOW that we know things by observation and simply assume an answer to the first question. This cyclical problem is called the problem of the criteria. There are only three answers to this problem. The first is the defeatest attitude, that we can't know anything. But this solution must be wrong, since the defeatest claims to KNOW that you can't know anything, thereby contradicting himself. The second solution claim that we must adopt an answer to the second question and give a set of rules as to how we know what we know. But this creates another problem. Say we know that X is true. Then this solution necessitates us to infer how we know X to be true. We may know X because of Y, but how do we know Y to be true. Because of Z, and so forth and so on. This becomes an infinite regression of "how do you know?" etc. etc. This is the position of the skeptic. In the end, this solution allows no real knowledge. The last solution attempts to assume some answer to the "what do we know?" question. This is, in my estimation, where most every thinking person begins their quest for knowledge. (Even the skeptic claims to KNOW that we can only know those things which we can verify with certainty, but he can't show that he KNOWS that with any certainty.) We all have a set of presuppositions and assumptions that we adopt without question, and we form every other belief and bit of knowledge off of them.
When a person asks "How do you know Christianity is true?", one must first ask in return how they believe we know anything at all. This isn't to be difficult, but rather to help identify where the questioner is coming from. If they are genuinely interested and assume that such knowledge is attainable, then you would proceed differently than if they are a true skeptic trying to intellectually outmanuever you. If the later is true, dealing with the actual apologetics that support Christianity may be initially fruitless. Instead, you may need to address the deeper foundational issues of the questioner's worldview.
A skeptic will define knowledge differently than will the Christian. They will demand absolute certainty as a prerequisite for knowledge while Christians and others like them will take a much more practical look at the evidence and decide which of the options on the table is more likely to be true. I will make the conjecture that we all, including the skeptic, must approach life from the non-skeptical, evidential point of view.
The skeptic will count the existence of an alternative logical possibility as grounds to reject a claim to knowledge. For example, you may respond to a skeptic with 300 pages of evidence regarding the historical accuracy of the New Testament, the lack of proven Biblical contradictions, and the thousands of manuscripts supporting the consistency of scripture, but they may say that it is still possible that it is some elaborate hoax and thus claim it is not possible to KNOW that it is true. This is the skeptical stance that requires certitude in order to have knowledge.
However, the skeptical mind can not function on this level all the time. For if the skeptic required certitude to know something, he would never be able to know anything, save for a few basic mathematical and self-evident truths. (Sometimes a skeptic will off that you can't be sure about anything, and they are sure about that. This is evidence that the position of the skeptic is, in the end, self-refuting.) It would never be possible for a skeptic to know who their mother is. Do they have a birth certificate, baby picture, witnesses, etc? Sure. But they could all be faked. It is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE to fake almost anything. The movie "the Matrix" showed that it is at least logically possible to fake all of existence with some elaborate computer controling the sensory input of all mankind. However, it is unreasonable to reject the reality aparent before us simply because it is logically possible computers are controling our brains. We must instead weigh the evidence.
I think this is the most crucial issue in the question "How do you know Christianity is true?" We must arrive at a place where we are allowed to weigh the evidence. This may mean we need to include other claims with Christianity on the table. Many other claims will have contradictions inherent in them. They can be rejected on such grounds. Others will stand to more intense scrutiny, but in the end may fail. But ultimately, the answer to the question "How do you know Christianity is true?" must be a process of coming alongside of the questioner, weighing the evidence and coming to a conclusion of what is probably true. In my experience, it is that the Christian worldview is the best and most comprehensive explanation of the world in which we live. I KNOW this like I know I have a mother and father, that I had cereal for breakfast, and that I am writing these words right now... even though it is at least logically possible those things are not true.
It is important in all of this that the Christian realize that the skeptical stance is real and is held closely to the heart of many who ask questions. We must always handle such conversations with care and gentleness. Arrogance does not make us intellectually wrong, but it is contrary to the love of Christ, who is the ultimate truth. We must be willing to come alongside all who are seeking truth in a gracious way. In this way, their struggle becomes our struggle, and we may all reason together.
Whether you are a Christian or of some other religious persuasion, chances are that you've had this thought yourselves or had it posed to you. The Christian will usually respond with a fairly short answer. They may refer to their upbringing in the Church, the teachings of the Bible, or their first hand experience. While these reasons may well be true and subjectively validate their own faith, they often leave the questioner vastly unsatisfied, often to the point of frustration. So what is the answer? What is the source of their frustration? How does a Christian respond?
Unfortunately, there is not an easy or quick answer. The question itself is loaded with presuppositions and assumptions that must be addressed first if any reasonable answer is to be given. Moreover, it may be the case that the questioner does not even wish to gain a reasonable response, but they rather wish to take an intellectual jab at what they see as an ignorant belief system. But even if that is the case, it is my firm conviction that the question allows the Christian to address many false assumptions that the questioner may carry while being gracious and loving.
It should be first noted that the question is not primarily one about Christianity. It is instead a question about knowledge itself! "How do you KNOW...?" There is a field of philosophy called epistomology which deals exclusively with these sorts of questions. We must all come to our own conclusions and answers to these very basic questions. How do we know anything? What is it exactly that we know? What constitutes knowledge? All of these questions are being indirectly addressed when someone asks "How do you know Christianity is true?"
There are two questions which seem to create a bit of a problem. The first being "what do we know?" and the second being "how do we know what we know?". It would appear that before we can move forward regarding questions of knowledge, we would need to answer these two questions. But if we venture to give an answer to the first question, say that we know snow is white, we would then need to ask ourselves how we knew that in the first place! So we would be needing to assume an answer to the second question in order to answer the first. On the other hand if we try to answer the second question, say that we know things by observation, then we claim that we KNOW that we know things by observation and simply assume an answer to the first question. This cyclical problem is called the problem of the criteria. There are only three answers to this problem. The first is the defeatest attitude, that we can't know anything. But this solution must be wrong, since the defeatest claims to KNOW that you can't know anything, thereby contradicting himself. The second solution claim that we must adopt an answer to the second question and give a set of rules as to how we know what we know. But this creates another problem. Say we know that X is true. Then this solution necessitates us to infer how we know X to be true. We may know X because of Y, but how do we know Y to be true. Because of Z, and so forth and so on. This becomes an infinite regression of "how do you know?" etc. etc. This is the position of the skeptic. In the end, this solution allows no real knowledge. The last solution attempts to assume some answer to the "what do we know?" question. This is, in my estimation, where most every thinking person begins their quest for knowledge. (Even the skeptic claims to KNOW that we can only know those things which we can verify with certainty, but he can't show that he KNOWS that with any certainty.) We all have a set of presuppositions and assumptions that we adopt without question, and we form every other belief and bit of knowledge off of them.
When a person asks "How do you know Christianity is true?", one must first ask in return how they believe we know anything at all. This isn't to be difficult, but rather to help identify where the questioner is coming from. If they are genuinely interested and assume that such knowledge is attainable, then you would proceed differently than if they are a true skeptic trying to intellectually outmanuever you. If the later is true, dealing with the actual apologetics that support Christianity may be initially fruitless. Instead, you may need to address the deeper foundational issues of the questioner's worldview.
A skeptic will define knowledge differently than will the Christian. They will demand absolute certainty as a prerequisite for knowledge while Christians and others like them will take a much more practical look at the evidence and decide which of the options on the table is more likely to be true. I will make the conjecture that we all, including the skeptic, must approach life from the non-skeptical, evidential point of view.
The skeptic will count the existence of an alternative logical possibility as grounds to reject a claim to knowledge. For example, you may respond to a skeptic with 300 pages of evidence regarding the historical accuracy of the New Testament, the lack of proven Biblical contradictions, and the thousands of manuscripts supporting the consistency of scripture, but they may say that it is still possible that it is some elaborate hoax and thus claim it is not possible to KNOW that it is true. This is the skeptical stance that requires certitude in order to have knowledge.
However, the skeptical mind can not function on this level all the time. For if the skeptic required certitude to know something, he would never be able to know anything, save for a few basic mathematical and self-evident truths. (Sometimes a skeptic will off that you can't be sure about anything, and they are sure about that. This is evidence that the position of the skeptic is, in the end, self-refuting.) It would never be possible for a skeptic to know who their mother is. Do they have a birth certificate, baby picture, witnesses, etc? Sure. But they could all be faked. It is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE to fake almost anything. The movie "the Matrix" showed that it is at least logically possible to fake all of existence with some elaborate computer controling the sensory input of all mankind. However, it is unreasonable to reject the reality aparent before us simply because it is logically possible computers are controling our brains. We must instead weigh the evidence.
I think this is the most crucial issue in the question "How do you know Christianity is true?" We must arrive at a place where we are allowed to weigh the evidence. This may mean we need to include other claims with Christianity on the table. Many other claims will have contradictions inherent in them. They can be rejected on such grounds. Others will stand to more intense scrutiny, but in the end may fail. But ultimately, the answer to the question "How do you know Christianity is true?" must be a process of coming alongside of the questioner, weighing the evidence and coming to a conclusion of what is probably true. In my experience, it is that the Christian worldview is the best and most comprehensive explanation of the world in which we live. I KNOW this like I know I have a mother and father, that I had cereal for breakfast, and that I am writing these words right now... even though it is at least logically possible those things are not true.
It is important in all of this that the Christian realize that the skeptical stance is real and is held closely to the heart of many who ask questions. We must always handle such conversations with care and gentleness. Arrogance does not make us intellectually wrong, but it is contrary to the love of Christ, who is the ultimate truth. We must be willing to come alongside all who are seeking truth in a gracious way. In this way, their struggle becomes our struggle, and we may all reason together.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The Ignorance of the Arrogance Argument
Have you ever seen a public debate, be it political or otherwise, where the two parties involved come to a critical disagreement on some very hot button topic? Often they will banter back and forth giving reasons for their intellectual position, but sometimes one of the parties will offer a claim to exclusivity. They are right and the opposition is wrong. End of story. Of course this doesn't sit well with the second party, and they stand up and exclaim what has become the kill shot in any discussion or debate, "What an incredibly arrogant statement! How arrogant of you to say such a thing!" Often times, that is all that needs to be said to send the offending party home with their tail between their legs.
Today we live in a culture where the only universally accepted truth is that of tolerance. This is not the same tolerance that was defined during past decades. That "old tolerance" allowed one to acknowledge that their position was better than the opposition. To put up with the opposition while holding the view that you were superior in some way was to tolerate them. You tolerate the annoying kid incessantly clicking his pen in the waiting room. You tolerate your in-laws. You don't have to like them, but you do have to learn to live with them. Unfortunately this tolerance often branched out to ethnic groups and other sectors of society. To tolerate another race or ethnic group necessarily meant that you perceived your race to be superior to theirs. This is why our culture today will often say the "old tolerance" is vastly intolerant.
The new tolerance makes a modified claim. One is no longer able to assume that their position is an any way superior to another. All views are equal in truth and validity, whether they be mere opinions or objective truth claims. The inclusion of objective truth claims in this new tolerance is of supreme importance. One would have a hard time arguing that if two people thought differently on the taste of a certain cookie that they would be right in making rash judgements about each others decision without being intolerant (according to the new definition), and indeed, arrogant. Matters of opinion are one thing, but in the realm of objective truth claims (claims that refer to the external reality and the truth "out there") this is a very damaging view. Logically, this way of thinking is fatally flawed, for it fails the law of non-contradiction. Jim can not claim that his view that the pyramids were built by Egyptian slaves is right nor that Bill's belief that aliens built them is wrong. According to our culture, that may be perceived as an arrogant thing to claim since Jim can't actually "prove" that the pyramids were built by Egyptian slaves. But unlike subjective statements of taste or opinion, these statements are objective truth claims. It may be that Jim and Bill are both wrong, but objectively they can not both be correct.
There are very few things that we can know with absolute certitude. Some basic laws of logic and mathematics may be taken to be certainly true without argument. The law of non-contradiction, 2+2=4 and other basic principles can be known with absolute certainty. However, there is a vast world of knowledge out there that the human mind can never know with 100% certainty. History, Chemistry, Physics, Psychology, and many other fields of science that study the universe around us can not offer us absolute certainty. What they do offer us is a method and a reason to venture to identify the most probable explanation for the world around us. This is why scientific theories are so often ammended to best fit the latest findings. Did we really land on the moon, or was it some elaborate conspiracy to fool the American people into believing that we did? We can never know for sure. We can only look at the evidence and decide what is most probable.
At this point many people will throw up their hands and claim that we can't know anything for sure! To which one should respond "are you sure about that?". The truth is we absolutely must be sure about some things. For example, there is truth. How do we know that for sure? Claim the opposite, "there is no truth". Is that true? If it is, then there is truth after all... but if it's not, then there must be truth somewhere. Thus we know for certain there is truth. And all objective truth claims suppose they contain some truth. Our goal is only to see which claim is most probable. And we do this by weighing the evidence and using our cognitive abilities to come to a conclusion.
If I were to stand up in a lecture hall on a campus at an American University and claim that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, that would be an objective truth claim. Either Jesus is the only way to Heaven, or He is not. That's the truth of the matter. There are certainly arguments for and against such a position, some good and some bad. But I can garauntee you that the vast majority of the time I would not hear a valid argument in response to such a statement. I would instead hear, "How terribly arrogant of you to make such a claim". Notice that this attack on my character has absolutely NOTHING to do with the statement I would have just made. In fact, the responding person may be right in their assesment of my character. I may indeed be a very arrogant person, but that is a totally different topic of conversation. The usual attack against Christianity is that it is for the intellectually inept person. But to think that a personal attack of arrogance is somehow a valid rebuttal to an objective claim is indeed very intellectually irresponsible.
As Christians, we should always strive to show the truth with love and compassion, with gentleness and respect. Arrogance is not a characteristic of Christ. The truth can and will be offensive to many, but that is the nature of truth. If you are living in accordance with Christ's will, and someone accuses you of being arrogant, recognize that we are fallen people, and reply that you may indeed have been acting arrogantly, but do not let that disuade you from delivering the truth that you bring.
Today we live in a culture where the only universally accepted truth is that of tolerance. This is not the same tolerance that was defined during past decades. That "old tolerance" allowed one to acknowledge that their position was better than the opposition. To put up with the opposition while holding the view that you were superior in some way was to tolerate them. You tolerate the annoying kid incessantly clicking his pen in the waiting room. You tolerate your in-laws. You don't have to like them, but you do have to learn to live with them. Unfortunately this tolerance often branched out to ethnic groups and other sectors of society. To tolerate another race or ethnic group necessarily meant that you perceived your race to be superior to theirs. This is why our culture today will often say the "old tolerance" is vastly intolerant.
The new tolerance makes a modified claim. One is no longer able to assume that their position is an any way superior to another. All views are equal in truth and validity, whether they be mere opinions or objective truth claims. The inclusion of objective truth claims in this new tolerance is of supreme importance. One would have a hard time arguing that if two people thought differently on the taste of a certain cookie that they would be right in making rash judgements about each others decision without being intolerant (according to the new definition), and indeed, arrogant. Matters of opinion are one thing, but in the realm of objective truth claims (claims that refer to the external reality and the truth "out there") this is a very damaging view. Logically, this way of thinking is fatally flawed, for it fails the law of non-contradiction. Jim can not claim that his view that the pyramids were built by Egyptian slaves is right nor that Bill's belief that aliens built them is wrong. According to our culture, that may be perceived as an arrogant thing to claim since Jim can't actually "prove" that the pyramids were built by Egyptian slaves. But unlike subjective statements of taste or opinion, these statements are objective truth claims. It may be that Jim and Bill are both wrong, but objectively they can not both be correct.
There are very few things that we can know with absolute certitude. Some basic laws of logic and mathematics may be taken to be certainly true without argument. The law of non-contradiction, 2+2=4 and other basic principles can be known with absolute certainty. However, there is a vast world of knowledge out there that the human mind can never know with 100% certainty. History, Chemistry, Physics, Psychology, and many other fields of science that study the universe around us can not offer us absolute certainty. What they do offer us is a method and a reason to venture to identify the most probable explanation for the world around us. This is why scientific theories are so often ammended to best fit the latest findings. Did we really land on the moon, or was it some elaborate conspiracy to fool the American people into believing that we did? We can never know for sure. We can only look at the evidence and decide what is most probable.
At this point many people will throw up their hands and claim that we can't know anything for sure! To which one should respond "are you sure about that?". The truth is we absolutely must be sure about some things. For example, there is truth. How do we know that for sure? Claim the opposite, "there is no truth". Is that true? If it is, then there is truth after all... but if it's not, then there must be truth somewhere. Thus we know for certain there is truth. And all objective truth claims suppose they contain some truth. Our goal is only to see which claim is most probable. And we do this by weighing the evidence and using our cognitive abilities to come to a conclusion.
If I were to stand up in a lecture hall on a campus at an American University and claim that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, that would be an objective truth claim. Either Jesus is the only way to Heaven, or He is not. That's the truth of the matter. There are certainly arguments for and against such a position, some good and some bad. But I can garauntee you that the vast majority of the time I would not hear a valid argument in response to such a statement. I would instead hear, "How terribly arrogant of you to make such a claim". Notice that this attack on my character has absolutely NOTHING to do with the statement I would have just made. In fact, the responding person may be right in their assesment of my character. I may indeed be a very arrogant person, but that is a totally different topic of conversation. The usual attack against Christianity is that it is for the intellectually inept person. But to think that a personal attack of arrogance is somehow a valid rebuttal to an objective claim is indeed very intellectually irresponsible.
As Christians, we should always strive to show the truth with love and compassion, with gentleness and respect. Arrogance is not a characteristic of Christ. The truth can and will be offensive to many, but that is the nature of truth. If you are living in accordance with Christ's will, and someone accuses you of being arrogant, recognize that we are fallen people, and reply that you may indeed have been acting arrogantly, but do not let that disuade you from delivering the truth that you bring.
Monday, February 1, 2010
An Unreasonable Church with a Reasonable Faith
We exist today in a globalized, secular western culture ruled by political correctness and tolerance. It is constantly being changed by the newest trends and ideas. Moreover, these trends and ideas are often propogated by the best and the brightest our culture has to offer. Rarely do these ideas subscribe to the Christian worldview. As Christians, how do we react to these trends and ideas? More importantly, how must we NOT react?
For the last several hundred years, our western culture has existed in what has been known philosophically as the modern era, or the age of enlightenment. Officially starting sometime in the seventeenth century, modernism is the cornerstone of all western thought and technological advancement. Modernism can be stated very simply in that there is an objective reality "out there" that we humans can learn about by observation and thought. Reality is in no way related to what one believes to be true, but only to what is actually true. This is the foundation of all modern thought and logic.
It is interesting to note that the majority of the men that ushered in and solidified the modernist way of thinking were Theists, and some of them Christians. Copernicus, Kepler, Newton and Boyle were just a few of the Christian minds that were there at the outset. But why were there so many Christians so deeply involved in what has sometimes been called the "scientific revolution"? Did their personal beliefs have anything to do with their desire and reason to investigate the world around them? My proposition is that they absolutely did. In order to first seek objectivity and truth in the world around them, one would have to adopt certain basic presuppostions in their worldview. They would have had to admit that the world and the matter in it is a good thing to know about. In essence, that knowledge of the thing would be a good thing to have. They would also need to admit that the universe is by nature orderly and rational, allowing oberservations to be made that will be consistent time after time. Also, they would need to adhere to logic and its transcendant nature. In other words, they would have seen that some problems can be dealt with solely within the mind with clear logic and reasoning without having to carry out physical observations and experimentation. Finally, they would have thought that humans themselves are capable in their senses to see this order within the universe and to investigate it physically and logically.
All of these aforementioned presuppositions are present in the Christian worldview. A God of infinite order and consistency created a universe that is orderly and good. It is worth knowing and is able to be studied by man, whom God created in his image with the capacity to study and learn from His creation. In a very real sense, the scientific revolution was a product of the Christian worldview, or at least aspects of it. And for many years the Christian Church was at the forefront of scientific discovery.
Then somewhere along the line, things started to go south. Perhaps the most famous example is that of Galileo. Through his work in studying the galaxy, he had come to the conclusion that the Earth was most likely not at the center of the universe. Even though we now know his results to be verifiably true, the leaders of the Catholic Church at the time held to the false egocentric view that the Earth was at the center of the universe, and all celestial bodies revolved around us. The Church subsequently put Galileo under house arrest for his views until he died.
There are many issues that have led to similar tensions between the Christian Church and the scientific community. Some have occured, as was the case with Galileo, as a result of false or exagerrated interpretations of Biblical teachings. Others have been propogated by bad science with baseless assumptions. Either way, the rift between the scientific community and the Christian faith is ever present to this day.
Today, the majority of world leaders are very intelligent individuals. Those that form our cultural makeup and thought are academics and intellects with a vast capacity for reason and thought. And most of them are not Christians. Christianity has largely been rejected as a religious placebo that is useful in calming that masses in times of trouble and keeping order in daily life. In fact, humanism, atheism, secularism and doctrinal tolerance are the worldviews held by those in power and places of influence. It is widely thought that in order to believe in Christianity, one must check their brain at the door. Why is this the case? Where have the Keplers and Newtons gone? Where has the Church which cultivated and motivated these great minds run off too? And why aren't we the Church answering these objections raised by the academic community?
I want to propose two such reasons. I am convinced there are more than just two reasons, but nevertheless, for the time being I will discuss only these two. The first has to do with the lack of clear thinking within the Church (indeed, in all of contemporary society). By clear thinking, I am referring to a proficient and understood use of reason and logic. The Bible commands us to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" - Luke 10:27. This is the "Great Commandment" in scripture. Most of the local churches I have been to have done a marvelous job with loving God with their heart, soul and strength, but they have been lack-luster at using their minds in a similar capacity.
You may have heard a church going man or woman utter a phrase such as "It wouldn't be called faith if you could explain it." This statement is in direct contradiction to sctripture when it commands us to "be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15) or to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor 10:5). In order to demolish an argument that sets itself up against God, one must first have a better and more logically sound argument. But instead we as the Church have propogated misrepresentations scripture that have justified our ignorance of reason within the body of Christ. I have heard it taught from scripture over and over again that we are not to rely on our own logic because the Bible teaches us to "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5). Not leaning on "our own understanding" could potentially mean many things, but it absolutely can not mean that we can't rely on or trust our own logical capabilities. Why not? Well, the question "why" itself is answer enough. How are we to respond to such to the question "why can't we rely on our own logic?" without using our own logic? It is a logical contradiction even to say that our logic doesn't hold, for if it is true, we can't logically come to the conclusion that our logic doesn't hold. Any argument against logic necessarily fails. Such teachings in the church are void of any real clear thought.
The second reason the Church is falling out of influence in the intellectual community compliments the first. Since the Church on the whole is thinking less clearly and putting even less emphasis on the intellectual cultivation of its members, most people who are coming to faith in Christ are doing so in an intellectual vacuum. This means that the vast majority of people who are accepting Christ in our culture are doing so not out of conviction that it is the truth, but out of a deep emotional need. A friend or loved one has died, there has been a disaster, a relationship has ended and they are looking for meaning and purpose in life. It is absolutely true that Christ offers us just that. But if there is a Church that is built of people who are not thinkers, but only the emotionally needy, then why should be we surprised if the rest of the thinking world looks at Christianity as nothing more than an emotional crutch? One of the most popular Christian books that is handed out on university campuses across the US says this:
"For me, the beginning of sharing my faith with people began by throwing out Christianity and embracing Christian spirituality, a nonpolitical mysterious system that can e experienced but not explained. Christianity, unlike Christian spirituality, was not a term that excited me. And I could not in good conscious tell a friend about a faith that didn't excite me... It felt like math."
If your child did not know two plus two was four, would you tell them? I would hope so. Would the fact that two and two put together make four in any way excite you? Hopefully not too much. The point is Christianity is not true because it excites anybody. It's certainly not true because it is some sort of experience. People suffer delusions every day that give them experiences, but those delusions certainly are not real. That's why they're called delusions. I propose that Christianity is true because it is an all encompassing, logically consistent worldview that is absolutely capable and standing up to any and all academic and intellectual arguments levied against it.
Finally, I would like to add that even though I believe the Church needs to return to a place of intellectual vitality, there is much more to the Christian faith than reason alone. It is far more than some cold set of laws and presuppositions. You will never argue another human being into the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life." All things that are true lie in God, and only in God. Therefore, when He said "seek and you shall find", if we seek the truth objectively, we will find God. But many seek to find their version of the truth and choose to reject those things that are made absolutely clear to them by God's own creation. The biggest player in all of this is not us, or our thinking or our logic, but God and his loving and infinite grace bestowed upon a fallen world.
For the last several hundred years, our western culture has existed in what has been known philosophically as the modern era, or the age of enlightenment. Officially starting sometime in the seventeenth century, modernism is the cornerstone of all western thought and technological advancement. Modernism can be stated very simply in that there is an objective reality "out there" that we humans can learn about by observation and thought. Reality is in no way related to what one believes to be true, but only to what is actually true. This is the foundation of all modern thought and logic.
It is interesting to note that the majority of the men that ushered in and solidified the modernist way of thinking were Theists, and some of them Christians. Copernicus, Kepler, Newton and Boyle were just a few of the Christian minds that were there at the outset. But why were there so many Christians so deeply involved in what has sometimes been called the "scientific revolution"? Did their personal beliefs have anything to do with their desire and reason to investigate the world around them? My proposition is that they absolutely did. In order to first seek objectivity and truth in the world around them, one would have to adopt certain basic presuppostions in their worldview. They would have had to admit that the world and the matter in it is a good thing to know about. In essence, that knowledge of the thing would be a good thing to have. They would also need to admit that the universe is by nature orderly and rational, allowing oberservations to be made that will be consistent time after time. Also, they would need to adhere to logic and its transcendant nature. In other words, they would have seen that some problems can be dealt with solely within the mind with clear logic and reasoning without having to carry out physical observations and experimentation. Finally, they would have thought that humans themselves are capable in their senses to see this order within the universe and to investigate it physically and logically.
All of these aforementioned presuppositions are present in the Christian worldview. A God of infinite order and consistency created a universe that is orderly and good. It is worth knowing and is able to be studied by man, whom God created in his image with the capacity to study and learn from His creation. In a very real sense, the scientific revolution was a product of the Christian worldview, or at least aspects of it. And for many years the Christian Church was at the forefront of scientific discovery.
Then somewhere along the line, things started to go south. Perhaps the most famous example is that of Galileo. Through his work in studying the galaxy, he had come to the conclusion that the Earth was most likely not at the center of the universe. Even though we now know his results to be verifiably true, the leaders of the Catholic Church at the time held to the false egocentric view that the Earth was at the center of the universe, and all celestial bodies revolved around us. The Church subsequently put Galileo under house arrest for his views until he died.
There are many issues that have led to similar tensions between the Christian Church and the scientific community. Some have occured, as was the case with Galileo, as a result of false or exagerrated interpretations of Biblical teachings. Others have been propogated by bad science with baseless assumptions. Either way, the rift between the scientific community and the Christian faith is ever present to this day.
Today, the majority of world leaders are very intelligent individuals. Those that form our cultural makeup and thought are academics and intellects with a vast capacity for reason and thought. And most of them are not Christians. Christianity has largely been rejected as a religious placebo that is useful in calming that masses in times of trouble and keeping order in daily life. In fact, humanism, atheism, secularism and doctrinal tolerance are the worldviews held by those in power and places of influence. It is widely thought that in order to believe in Christianity, one must check their brain at the door. Why is this the case? Where have the Keplers and Newtons gone? Where has the Church which cultivated and motivated these great minds run off too? And why aren't we the Church answering these objections raised by the academic community?
I want to propose two such reasons. I am convinced there are more than just two reasons, but nevertheless, for the time being I will discuss only these two. The first has to do with the lack of clear thinking within the Church (indeed, in all of contemporary society). By clear thinking, I am referring to a proficient and understood use of reason and logic. The Bible commands us to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" - Luke 10:27. This is the "Great Commandment" in scripture. Most of the local churches I have been to have done a marvelous job with loving God with their heart, soul and strength, but they have been lack-luster at using their minds in a similar capacity.
You may have heard a church going man or woman utter a phrase such as "It wouldn't be called faith if you could explain it." This statement is in direct contradiction to sctripture when it commands us to "be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15) or to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor 10:5). In order to demolish an argument that sets itself up against God, one must first have a better and more logically sound argument. But instead we as the Church have propogated misrepresentations scripture that have justified our ignorance of reason within the body of Christ. I have heard it taught from scripture over and over again that we are not to rely on our own logic because the Bible teaches us to "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5). Not leaning on "our own understanding" could potentially mean many things, but it absolutely can not mean that we can't rely on or trust our own logical capabilities. Why not? Well, the question "why" itself is answer enough. How are we to respond to such to the question "why can't we rely on our own logic?" without using our own logic? It is a logical contradiction even to say that our logic doesn't hold, for if it is true, we can't logically come to the conclusion that our logic doesn't hold. Any argument against logic necessarily fails. Such teachings in the church are void of any real clear thought.
The second reason the Church is falling out of influence in the intellectual community compliments the first. Since the Church on the whole is thinking less clearly and putting even less emphasis on the intellectual cultivation of its members, most people who are coming to faith in Christ are doing so in an intellectual vacuum. This means that the vast majority of people who are accepting Christ in our culture are doing so not out of conviction that it is the truth, but out of a deep emotional need. A friend or loved one has died, there has been a disaster, a relationship has ended and they are looking for meaning and purpose in life. It is absolutely true that Christ offers us just that. But if there is a Church that is built of people who are not thinkers, but only the emotionally needy, then why should be we surprised if the rest of the thinking world looks at Christianity as nothing more than an emotional crutch? One of the most popular Christian books that is handed out on university campuses across the US says this:
"For me, the beginning of sharing my faith with people began by throwing out Christianity and embracing Christian spirituality, a nonpolitical mysterious system that can e experienced but not explained. Christianity, unlike Christian spirituality, was not a term that excited me. And I could not in good conscious tell a friend about a faith that didn't excite me... It felt like math."
If your child did not know two plus two was four, would you tell them? I would hope so. Would the fact that two and two put together make four in any way excite you? Hopefully not too much. The point is Christianity is not true because it excites anybody. It's certainly not true because it is some sort of experience. People suffer delusions every day that give them experiences, but those delusions certainly are not real. That's why they're called delusions. I propose that Christianity is true because it is an all encompassing, logically consistent worldview that is absolutely capable and standing up to any and all academic and intellectual arguments levied against it.
Finally, I would like to add that even though I believe the Church needs to return to a place of intellectual vitality, there is much more to the Christian faith than reason alone. It is far more than some cold set of laws and presuppositions. You will never argue another human being into the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life." All things that are true lie in God, and only in God. Therefore, when He said "seek and you shall find", if we seek the truth objectively, we will find God. But many seek to find their version of the truth and choose to reject those things that are made absolutely clear to them by God's own creation. The biggest player in all of this is not us, or our thinking or our logic, but God and his loving and infinite grace bestowed upon a fallen world.
Friday, January 22, 2010
My Story
I was born in Green Bay, Wisconsin and was raised about 20 miles north of town. I grew up attending church, but early on I began to question most everything I was being taught. Church became just another thing I did during the week, and by the age of 10 I had rejected the idea of God all together. If the adults that taught me about God also propagated lies such as the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, then why should I believe in the God they told me about. And for years many of my questions were answered not in church, but in school. Evolution showed me where we came from, and the Big Bang explained how everything came to be. By the time I was in high school, I didn't believe anything those "Christians" were feeding me. Any time I asked them a question, they would respond with "the Bible says so" or "Just believe in Jesus." I had given up on Christianity.
It was during my junior year in high school that I began to realize the logical implications of my atheistic beliefs. There was no such thing as right and wrong, for they would require someone of absolute authority to state them. There was no purpose in life. I was terrified of death, and that was the only reason I didn't seriously consider suicide. I started working very hard to "get ahead" in life, for the sole purpose of gaining power over others so that I would have the authority to dictate to them what I wanted to be right and wrong (since right and wrong can only be subjective in an atheistic worldview). It became overwhelming by the end of my senior year, and it became obvious that suicide might be the only real solution... unless, of course, I was wrong. What if there really was a God?
So when I started college at the University of Wisconsin, I began a deep search for the credibility of God. I read many books and talked to many Christians who were well educated and had reasonable responses to my questions. I became convinced that God was indeed real and
involved in His creation. Furthermore I realized that the Bible was historically reliable and pointed to the truth of the Gospel. So on February 2nd, 2003 (my freshman year)I prayed to receive Christ as my Lord and Savior.
I went on to get my degree in Nuclear Engineering and Mathematics and continued on to Auburn University to pursue my PhD in mathematics. I immediately got involved with Campus Crusade for Christ at Auburn and by my second year of graduate school I realized I didn't desire to finish my PhD. I took several weeks to pray and fast and by the end of that time I
was convinced of my calling to enter into the ministry. So I graduated in May of 2009 with my Masters, and proceeded to pursue my calling into Christian missions, more specifically Christian Apologetics.
Christian Apologetics is a intellectual and spiritual discipline that focuses on giving a well reasoned, logical defense of the Christian faith. Our work often includes refuting competing arguments that contradict the teachings of Christianity such as those stemming from Atheism, Agnosticism, Postmodernism, etc. My personal passions that have guided me to this point have much to do with my past. We are commanded to give a reason to all who ask for the hope we have, and to do so with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15) and we are also commanded to destroy all arguments and pretenses that set themselves up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor 10:5). Often in my graduate program we would receive a one line statement of a mathematical theorem. We would then take out sheets of paper to prove the statement either true or false. That would be our exam. Instead of having mathematical theorems, I have grown to love taking
statements such as "Jesus is the only way to God" and giving an argument for that to be true (or refuting an argument that shows it to be false). I also have a passion to teach and prepare fellow Christians to have valid and sound responses to those arguments and pretenses that bombard us from within and from outside the Christian Church. I hope someday to work primarily with High School and College students in an apologetical ministry. There has recently been an epidemic in the Church that falsely teaches that giving a logical argument and defense for our Christian faith is not needed, since it is by "faith" that we are saved. This is distinctly unbiblical, and moreover it has led to the mass evactuation of the faith by leading academics and intellectuals. These individuals as a group tend to guide our country and our world in our thinking and our philosophy. The degredation of our moral and cultural climate is evidence of this secular leadership and influence. I believe this is largely a result of the outright invalidation of the Christian worldview based on its perception of being only for the weak minded. I contend that not only can the Christian faith stand up to scrutiny, but it is more comprehensive and viable than any other worldview. But even if my belief is true, it will not matter if we continue as Christians to wallow in our collective ignorance, not knowing why we believe what we believe and why it is more valid than any other belief system.
It was during my junior year in high school that I began to realize the logical implications of my atheistic beliefs. There was no such thing as right and wrong, for they would require someone of absolute authority to state them. There was no purpose in life. I was terrified of death, and that was the only reason I didn't seriously consider suicide. I started working very hard to "get ahead" in life, for the sole purpose of gaining power over others so that I would have the authority to dictate to them what I wanted to be right and wrong (since right and wrong can only be subjective in an atheistic worldview). It became overwhelming by the end of my senior year, and it became obvious that suicide might be the only real solution... unless, of course, I was wrong. What if there really was a God?
So when I started college at the University of Wisconsin, I began a deep search for the credibility of God. I read many books and talked to many Christians who were well educated and had reasonable responses to my questions. I became convinced that God was indeed real and
involved in His creation. Furthermore I realized that the Bible was historically reliable and pointed to the truth of the Gospel. So on February 2nd, 2003 (my freshman year)I prayed to receive Christ as my Lord and Savior.
I went on to get my degree in Nuclear Engineering and Mathematics and continued on to Auburn University to pursue my PhD in mathematics. I immediately got involved with Campus Crusade for Christ at Auburn and by my second year of graduate school I realized I didn't desire to finish my PhD. I took several weeks to pray and fast and by the end of that time I
was convinced of my calling to enter into the ministry. So I graduated in May of 2009 with my Masters, and proceeded to pursue my calling into Christian missions, more specifically Christian Apologetics.
Christian Apologetics is a intellectual and spiritual discipline that focuses on giving a well reasoned, logical defense of the Christian faith. Our work often includes refuting competing arguments that contradict the teachings of Christianity such as those stemming from Atheism, Agnosticism, Postmodernism, etc. My personal passions that have guided me to this point have much to do with my past. We are commanded to give a reason to all who ask for the hope we have, and to do so with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15) and we are also commanded to destroy all arguments and pretenses that set themselves up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor 10:5). Often in my graduate program we would receive a one line statement of a mathematical theorem. We would then take out sheets of paper to prove the statement either true or false. That would be our exam. Instead of having mathematical theorems, I have grown to love taking
statements such as "Jesus is the only way to God" and giving an argument for that to be true (or refuting an argument that shows it to be false). I also have a passion to teach and prepare fellow Christians to have valid and sound responses to those arguments and pretenses that bombard us from within and from outside the Christian Church. I hope someday to work primarily with High School and College students in an apologetical ministry. There has recently been an epidemic in the Church that falsely teaches that giving a logical argument and defense for our Christian faith is not needed, since it is by "faith" that we are saved. This is distinctly unbiblical, and moreover it has led to the mass evactuation of the faith by leading academics and intellectuals. These individuals as a group tend to guide our country and our world in our thinking and our philosophy. The degredation of our moral and cultural climate is evidence of this secular leadership and influence. I believe this is largely a result of the outright invalidation of the Christian worldview based on its perception of being only for the weak minded. I contend that not only can the Christian faith stand up to scrutiny, but it is more comprehensive and viable than any other worldview. But even if my belief is true, it will not matter if we continue as Christians to wallow in our collective ignorance, not knowing why we believe what we believe and why it is more valid than any other belief system.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
