Recently a new book has hit the shelves that has caused many to be concerned. The author claims to be a Christian, and the book purports to be Christian as well. However, during the weeks preceding the book’s release, word was going around that there might be some false statements made in the book that could potentially render its contents out of the realm of Christianity and into the realm of Universalism. Now Universalism is a term that could technically be applied to all the Abrahamic religions including Christianity. This is because each of these religions claims to be all inclusive. Anyone and everyone can be a Christian if they so choose. However, this is not the definition that we are concerned with in the context of this article. Rather, we will be looking at Universalism as defined by the group called Religious Tolerance (religioustolerance.org):
Universalism is a religious movement which promotes the belief that every person will go to heaven after death. This is in contrast with the traditional Christian belief that one's natural destination is eternal torment in Hell. Only those who are saved will attain heaven.
It is clear that Universalism and Christianity are incompatible. Logically we must conclude that one MUST be wrong, and it’s possible that both are wrong. The critique that follows will mostly be discussing claims that are blatantly not Christian or that simply cannot be true. I will refrain from using the book’s title and author throughout as I am only concerned in addressing the content and not in attacking any one’s person. This is about acknowledging there is absolute truth which can be known, and once known, should be defended. Ideas have consequences. False ideas can have tragic consequences.
The book begins:
“I’ve written this book for all those, everywhere, who have heard some version of the Jesus story that caused their pulse rate to rise, their stomachs to churn, and their heart to utter those resolute words, “I would never be a part of that.
You are not alone.
There are millions of us.”
Not yet reaching the second page click on a kindle, I must stop and address some truth claims. The author refers to “some version of the Jesus story” as if there are multiple ways that Jesus actually lived. The author may not be meaning that, simply because he does not take a stance. One stance that MUST be taken regarding this issue, however, is which of these “versions” is true! There are not multiple histories of the world. There are no “versions” of George Washington being the first president of the United States. That would imply that some people say he was and some people say it was a concocted story and some flat out deny there was ever a person named George Washington. Furthermore, we would be obligated, according the author’s treatment of historical events, to treat each of these claims regarding George Washington as equal! This is logically absurd.
Furthermore, one is left wondering what the author is speaking of what he refers to “the Jesus story.” When I look back on my Grandfather’s life in photo albums, people tell me stories and memories they have. It is a reality that a person’s life can be categorized as a story. What is not possible is to have multiple contradictory stories all being true and equally valid at the same time and in the same meaning.
A few paragraphs later, we come to this statement:
“A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’s message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.”
Here the author seems to commit logical suicide by refuting his own stance outright. Christianity does make the truth claim that heaven and hell are real places. (See Biblical book of revelation) Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.” (John 14:6) Jesus is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. If Jesus lied about such a thing, then He would have sinned. If Jesus sinned, He could not have been God. If Jesus was not God, then He could not have been able to bear the sins of the whole world, which Christianity claims He did when He was crucified some 2000 years ago.
The foundation and core of the Christian faith can be found in the Biblical book of Romans chapter 5:
“ Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” – Romans 5:12-21
In short, the message… the very truth claim of Christianity… is that all people have knowledge of God, all people reject God, all people are guilty before God, and all people are condemned before God. But God, in His grace and mercy, made a way of salvation for the lost in the person of Jesus Christ, His Son and humanity’s Lord. Through faith in Christ alone can anyone come to God.
Of course not everyone has faith in Christ as Savior and Lord. What are the logical implications? If one rejects the person of Jesus, then according the Christian truth claim, they are unable to come to God. Yet, Christianity claims our souls will live for eternity somewhere, so if one’s soul cannot come to God, then where does it spend eternity? Separated from God, cast into what the Bible calls the lake of fire. Jesus called this place hell, and He talked of it many times.
“If your right eye causes you to stumble (referring to sin), gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.” Matthew 5:29-30
“It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where
“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’
Everyone will be salted with fire.” – Mark 9:47-49
“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.” – Luke 12:5
Perhaps the passage most pertinent to our discussion here is found in 2 Peter, chapter 2:
“Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire.” – 2 Peter 2:2-10.
The author of the book acknowledges these Christian truth claims. If someone were to reject the idea that individuals will go to hell, they would be rejecting the exclusivity of Christ’s claim. He is the only way to heaven. If they reject Christ’s exclusive claim, then they necessarily reject the absolute need for Jesus as our Savior. If Jesus is not absolutely needed by everyone, then the Bible is full of lies and cannot be trusted. If the Bible, the foundation of all Christian faith, contains any lies whatsoever, the entire book is compromised and the faith which is based on it dies. Indeed, when the author says (weeding out the unneeded connotative word ploys aimed at your emotion and not at your mind), “people have been taught that …Christians will spend forever in …heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever …in hell... It’s been… communicated …that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus,” he is exactly stating what Christianity teaches. Either this claim is true or it is not. To be Christian, one must believe it to be true. One can doubt and investigate for themselves to see which claim is true, but in the end, a Christian must belief Jesus is the only way to God and those who reject Him are cast into hell. It is essential to the message of the Christian gospel. Put simply, any belief system that denies this claim… is not Christian.
I have not yet made it through the first part of the first chapter. I shall continue my reading and continue to post my logical analysis here for all who care to read.
Analogy of the Trinity
When it comes to analogies of the Trinity, we must take care to remember that anything we can think of or encounter will not be exhaustively sufficient to explain the triune nature of God. That’s why they’re called analogies. If any analogy were to describe the Trinity perfectly, it would cease to be an analogy and it would become the Trinity itself. Yet, this does not mean we should not endeavor to understand who God is and how He functions. Thus we strive to find better ways in which our finite minds might grasp the infinite complexities of God.
There are many analogies that float around that attempt to describe certain aspects of the Trinity. The example of the egg is often used. The shell is the Father, the egg white is the Son, and the yolk is the Holy Spirit. There is also the example of the 3 physical forms of material, such as water. Ice, water and steam are all water, yet they serve different purposes. These are great examples for many reasons, and they do wonders when speaking with certain audiences. However, they are but analogies, and as such they each contain notable flaws. The three parts of an egg do indeed make up the totality of an egg. An egg is not a complete egg without these three parts. In this way it explains the Trinity. However, the egg analogy lacks the critical insight in showing that God is One while being three distinct persons. They are inseparable. You cannot take one person of the Trinity in a vacuum. If you could, we could not say that God is One. If you take a shell away from an egg, you still have the other two parts. It’s three parts are distinct and separable. An egg white is not an egg. Nor can an egg shell claim to constitute and entire egg. However, Jesus is God is the Holy Spirit. They are distinct persons, but inseparable in essence.
In a different way, the analogy of the physical states of water has its own shortcomings. Unlike the egg, water is ice is steam. It is the same substance. It is the same essential stuff. However, they cannot physically coexist in the same environment over time. The state of water, as we well know, necessarily depends on the external ambient temperature in which it exists. Yes, it is possible to have ice and water and steam present in a general vicinity at the same time, but those three phases of water will each necessarily have at least one different property than the other two. Assuming Earth’s atmospheric pressure, we know that the ice must be below 0 degree centigrade, the water must be between 0 and 100 C, and the steam must be over 100 C. If this were not the case, they would not be ice, water or steam respectively. It temperature is a defining characteristic of each phase of water. This means that at 40 degrees centigrade, only water can ultimately exist. Yet the Trinity coexists as One God at all times in all situations. God is not compartmentalized by space, temperature, time or any other modes of measurement. He is infinite, and that is the problem that most every analogy cannot overcome.
One way to circumvent the problem of the infinite is to consider something that is not finite. This brings us to the spatial dimension analogy that has been discussed elsewhere. Mathematics and logic are special in that they are not necessarily governed by the existing universe. It is my own personal opinion (one that I would be glad to back up with a plethora of arguments. ) that the physical universe is not infinite in any of its contents or dimensions. However, in a very real sense mathematics and logic do not abide by the rules of this universe. Rather, the universe abides by the laws of logic. For example, imagine that there are exactly 1 trillion “things” in existence, be they quarks, protons, donuts or elephants. We have 1 trillion fundamental things and not a unit more. If that were true, could we still do that mathematical problem 1 trillion + 1 trillion = 2 trillion? Of course we could! But no one would know what 2 trillion things looks like! It exists only in our mind. Similarly the laws of logic are transcendent. The statement “truth exists” must necessarily be true at all times at all places. We know this because the statement “truth does not exist,” if true, would be necessarily false. Thus truth must exist in and outside of any and all dimensions. Logic is transcendent. (This is a great argument for an atheistic friend who wants to use logic to refute the existence of a transcendent being of any kind. It’s a self-refuting position.)
This transcendence is extremely helpful for the human mind to grow in its understanding of its creator. Though I can make a strong argument against the physical existence of the infinite, I would just as vehemently assert that we can dwell upon the concept of the infinite. We can imagine the infinite and often use it in mathematical modeling. (side note: this is another wonderful brain teaser to set before a skeptical friend, especially if they are of the engineering/science/math makeup. They can easily do a limit problem by conceiving the idea of the infinite in their mind. Yet, ask them if they can think of a color that they have never seen! No one will be able to do it! They cannot think of something which they have never experienced or known. So why is it, then, that we can so readily think of and dwell upon the infinite? GREAT rhetorical question! It clearly seems to imply that the human mind has experienced the infinite in some form or fashion) Whereas the other analogies failed in that they were not infinite in nature, a purely theoretical, easily understood, mathematical model would not have to suffer from such a deficiency.
This brings us to the spatial dimension analogy of the Trinity. The first dimension is but a straight, infinite like. There is no up or down, nor is there any forward or back. There is just side to side. Yet this one line must exist for all other things to possibly exist. We cannot even imagine a world in which a first dimension did not exist. It is unfathomable, and thus the first dimension is foundational and necessary for all other spatial entities to exist. In a very real sense, it is the Father of all physical space.
Once we add the second dimension to the first, we begin to see things as an infinite plane. In mathematics, this is usually described by the infinite x and y axis that make up the Cartesian plane. Both the x-axis and the y-axis are single dimensions. They are both infinite lines that are essentially the same. But the second single dimension allows one to see the world around them. We see everything in two dimensions. It is the way we were designed. Even 3D images are seen by our brain as 2 dimensional images. We may interpret them differently, but their appearance to us is always 2 dimensional. It was Jesus who said to Phillip, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (John 14:9). We see God in the Son.
Lastly, we can add the infinite z-axis that penetrates our 2 dimensional Cartesian plane. This addition of another infinite one dimensional line, essentially the same as the first two, allows us to experience things such as depth. What was only a square that we could see on a plane before can now become a cube that we can lift and touch. Indeed, each of exists in three dimensional space. This is the spatial dimension in which we will live out and experience our entire lives. We cannot be constrained to 1 or 2, and we cannot fathom a fourth. Yet, the Scriptures tell us clearly that the Holy Spirit lives within us as believers (1 Corinthians 2:10). We should not confuse our theology at this point and claim that the Holy Spirit is confined to spatial dimensions. That would infer that God is bound by his own physical creation, a logical absurdity. Rather, we are noting that we experience life in its totality in the third dimension, and that includes how we experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We do not simply see Him or acknowledge Him as being foundational. We experience Him.
Thus we see that we have an infinite analogy in which three equivalent things work together in an inseparable way, each to serve its own purpose. Remove one, and space ceases to exist. Yet the only thing that differentiates the x, y and z axis are the letters that we arbitrarily labeled them with. God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Essentially the same while serving different, distinct purposes.
Lastly, this analogy also proves useful in that it is eternal. Time is the fourth dimension that governs the physical universe, but it is by its very nature independent of three dimensional space. A unit cube will be the same unit cube yesterday, today and tomorrow. It will never change, or at least not until the universe ceases to be. But at that time, we won’t need an analogy to explain the Trinity. We will see for ourselves.
(We would do well to remember that this is still just an analogy, and it will never be more than that. God is not confined to spatial dimensions. He created space, and thus He cannot be confined within it. However, for the purpsoses stated, the model serves its purposes, and is still one of the best analogies that I have yet come accross when dwelling on the Trinity.) Perhaps God wanted us to see this analogy from the very beginning, as the Psalmist writes:
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands. – Psalm 19:1
There are many analogies that float around that attempt to describe certain aspects of the Trinity. The example of the egg is often used. The shell is the Father, the egg white is the Son, and the yolk is the Holy Spirit. There is also the example of the 3 physical forms of material, such as water. Ice, water and steam are all water, yet they serve different purposes. These are great examples for many reasons, and they do wonders when speaking with certain audiences. However, they are but analogies, and as such they each contain notable flaws. The three parts of an egg do indeed make up the totality of an egg. An egg is not a complete egg without these three parts. In this way it explains the Trinity. However, the egg analogy lacks the critical insight in showing that God is One while being three distinct persons. They are inseparable. You cannot take one person of the Trinity in a vacuum. If you could, we could not say that God is One. If you take a shell away from an egg, you still have the other two parts. It’s three parts are distinct and separable. An egg white is not an egg. Nor can an egg shell claim to constitute and entire egg. However, Jesus is God is the Holy Spirit. They are distinct persons, but inseparable in essence.
In a different way, the analogy of the physical states of water has its own shortcomings. Unlike the egg, water is ice is steam. It is the same substance. It is the same essential stuff. However, they cannot physically coexist in the same environment over time. The state of water, as we well know, necessarily depends on the external ambient temperature in which it exists. Yes, it is possible to have ice and water and steam present in a general vicinity at the same time, but those three phases of water will each necessarily have at least one different property than the other two. Assuming Earth’s atmospheric pressure, we know that the ice must be below 0 degree centigrade, the water must be between 0 and 100 C, and the steam must be over 100 C. If this were not the case, they would not be ice, water or steam respectively. It temperature is a defining characteristic of each phase of water. This means that at 40 degrees centigrade, only water can ultimately exist. Yet the Trinity coexists as One God at all times in all situations. God is not compartmentalized by space, temperature, time or any other modes of measurement. He is infinite, and that is the problem that most every analogy cannot overcome.
One way to circumvent the problem of the infinite is to consider something that is not finite. This brings us to the spatial dimension analogy that has been discussed elsewhere. Mathematics and logic are special in that they are not necessarily governed by the existing universe. It is my own personal opinion (one that I would be glad to back up with a plethora of arguments. ) that the physical universe is not infinite in any of its contents or dimensions. However, in a very real sense mathematics and logic do not abide by the rules of this universe. Rather, the universe abides by the laws of logic. For example, imagine that there are exactly 1 trillion “things” in existence, be they quarks, protons, donuts or elephants. We have 1 trillion fundamental things and not a unit more. If that were true, could we still do that mathematical problem 1 trillion + 1 trillion = 2 trillion? Of course we could! But no one would know what 2 trillion things looks like! It exists only in our mind. Similarly the laws of logic are transcendent. The statement “truth exists” must necessarily be true at all times at all places. We know this because the statement “truth does not exist,” if true, would be necessarily false. Thus truth must exist in and outside of any and all dimensions. Logic is transcendent. (This is a great argument for an atheistic friend who wants to use logic to refute the existence of a transcendent being of any kind. It’s a self-refuting position.)
This transcendence is extremely helpful for the human mind to grow in its understanding of its creator. Though I can make a strong argument against the physical existence of the infinite, I would just as vehemently assert that we can dwell upon the concept of the infinite. We can imagine the infinite and often use it in mathematical modeling. (side note: this is another wonderful brain teaser to set before a skeptical friend, especially if they are of the engineering/science/math makeup. They can easily do a limit problem by conceiving the idea of the infinite in their mind. Yet, ask them if they can think of a color that they have never seen! No one will be able to do it! They cannot think of something which they have never experienced or known. So why is it, then, that we can so readily think of and dwell upon the infinite? GREAT rhetorical question! It clearly seems to imply that the human mind has experienced the infinite in some form or fashion) Whereas the other analogies failed in that they were not infinite in nature, a purely theoretical, easily understood, mathematical model would not have to suffer from such a deficiency.
This brings us to the spatial dimension analogy of the Trinity. The first dimension is but a straight, infinite like. There is no up or down, nor is there any forward or back. There is just side to side. Yet this one line must exist for all other things to possibly exist. We cannot even imagine a world in which a first dimension did not exist. It is unfathomable, and thus the first dimension is foundational and necessary for all other spatial entities to exist. In a very real sense, it is the Father of all physical space.
Once we add the second dimension to the first, we begin to see things as an infinite plane. In mathematics, this is usually described by the infinite x and y axis that make up the Cartesian plane. Both the x-axis and the y-axis are single dimensions. They are both infinite lines that are essentially the same. But the second single dimension allows one to see the world around them. We see everything in two dimensions. It is the way we were designed. Even 3D images are seen by our brain as 2 dimensional images. We may interpret them differently, but their appearance to us is always 2 dimensional. It was Jesus who said to Phillip, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (John 14:9). We see God in the Son.
Lastly, we can add the infinite z-axis that penetrates our 2 dimensional Cartesian plane. This addition of another infinite one dimensional line, essentially the same as the first two, allows us to experience things such as depth. What was only a square that we could see on a plane before can now become a cube that we can lift and touch. Indeed, each of exists in three dimensional space. This is the spatial dimension in which we will live out and experience our entire lives. We cannot be constrained to 1 or 2, and we cannot fathom a fourth. Yet, the Scriptures tell us clearly that the Holy Spirit lives within us as believers (1 Corinthians 2:10). We should not confuse our theology at this point and claim that the Holy Spirit is confined to spatial dimensions. That would infer that God is bound by his own physical creation, a logical absurdity. Rather, we are noting that we experience life in its totality in the third dimension, and that includes how we experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We do not simply see Him or acknowledge Him as being foundational. We experience Him.
Thus we see that we have an infinite analogy in which three equivalent things work together in an inseparable way, each to serve its own purpose. Remove one, and space ceases to exist. Yet the only thing that differentiates the x, y and z axis are the letters that we arbitrarily labeled them with. God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Essentially the same while serving different, distinct purposes.
Lastly, this analogy also proves useful in that it is eternal. Time is the fourth dimension that governs the physical universe, but it is by its very nature independent of three dimensional space. A unit cube will be the same unit cube yesterday, today and tomorrow. It will never change, or at least not until the universe ceases to be. But at that time, we won’t need an analogy to explain the Trinity. We will see for ourselves.
(We would do well to remember that this is still just an analogy, and it will never be more than that. God is not confined to spatial dimensions. He created space, and thus He cannot be confined within it. However, for the purpsoses stated, the model serves its purposes, and is still one of the best analogies that I have yet come accross when dwelling on the Trinity.) Perhaps God wanted us to see this analogy from the very beginning, as the Psalmist writes:
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands. – Psalm 19:1
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Why are the Gospels Written in the Third Person?
Some have argued that the gospels should be rejected because they claim to be first hand accounts but are written in the third person. Why would the writers of the first four books of the new testament have written their accounts in the third person?
The 4 gospels consist of the books written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John concerning the life and works of Jesus of Nazareth.
Luke begins his book with this statement, “Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.” This would seem to imply that although Luke may have been present for some of the events, he is writing from a researcher’s perspective who is compiling information gathered from multiple sources. Thus, we should expect the book of Luke to be written in the third person. However, from this passage we can also assume that other written records of the life of Jesus had already been written by the time Luke sat down to write his account. Furthermore, the book of Luke is continued in Acts, where we see the “we passages” in Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, and 27:1-28:16. Here it seems as though Luke personally joins Paul in his journeys and no longer writes in the third person but in the first.
Mark was not an eyewitness of the life of Jesus, but rather recorded Peter’s eyewitness accounts as Peter’s disciple and interpreter. As an Apostle, Peter was an eyewitness and it has been historically recorded that Mark “made no mistake” and did not include “any false statement” as he recorded Peter’s first hand account. Around 180 AD, Irenaeus wrote “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, …handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching.” This would explain why Mark wrote his gospel in the third person, for he himself did not see the events recorded.
John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, is credited with authorship of the gospel that bears his name. There is discussion among Biblical scholars as to if John was indeed the author of the gospel or not. In John 1:14, it can be read “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory.” The use of “us” and “we” as pronouns in the Greek would most reasonably imply that the author had witnessed at least some of the events firsthand. However, there is the possibility that the pronouns refer to all of humanity, and not to a firsthand account. The lack of any reference to the Apostle John in the book (when he is mentioned over 20 times in the other gospels), the referring of John the Baptist as simply “John” and the consistent reference to the “disciple whom Jesus loved” are peculiarities that those denying John’s authorship must address. It is also noteworthy, as per your question, that the other biblical books credited to John in authorship (1,2,3 John and Revelation) are written in the first person.
Matthew is generally thought to be the true author of the gospel that bears his name as well. This leaves John and Matthew as eyewitnesses who likely wrote of their experiences in the third person. So why would they have written in the third person instead of the first person? There are several reasons why this is the case.
It was a fairly standard practice in ancient writing to refer to oneself in the third person. We find this, for example, in Xenophon’s Expedition of Cyrus and Caesar’s Commentaries. Given this fact, it is not particularly surprising that Matthew and John adopt the same convention; it is certainly not evidence against Matthew’s or John’s authorship of the Gospels that bear their names. But what do we make of John’s writing in first person throughout his other biblical books? The main difference between the Gospels and the other books of the New Testament is that the Gospels function primarily as biographies for Christ and His ministry. John’s four other biblical books are either intended for teaching, encouraging and correcting a particular person or group (1,2,3 John) or to report to specific churches what the Lord had revealed to him through revelation regarding the end times and the final judgment (Revelation). These were more personal letters than biographies.
The purpose of all the Gospels is clear. A written account of what happened during Jesus ministry was not needed during the lifetimes of those that had actually been there and witnessed it. This is why we do not need to write textbooks today discussing what happened on September 11, 2001. There are many reputable people who we can ask personally about the happenings of that day when thousands died during the terrorists attacks on the US. However, it should be expected that at some point, someone who was there will take the time to write down everything they deem important about that day so that their memories will not die with them. This would be the case with the Gospels regarding Jesus Christ. However, just as the person writing about 9/11 might see fit to exclude themselves from their written record to maintain a sense of objectivity for the reader (few history books are ever written in first person except when they make quotations), we might expect Matthew and John to put their focus on the objective realities of what Christ said and did, and not on their subjective thoughts or insights. Their deep respect of the subject at hand, namely Jesus, prevented them from inserting themselves as characters in a historical setting that was much bigger than themselves.
(As a side note, it might be argued that the gospel writers were biased in their writings in favor of Christ. The proper response to this would not be to argue against such a bias, but to argue as to how the bias had affected their reporting of the objective historical events. For example, 100 years from now if we had two accounts of 9/11, one from the American perspective, and one from the Chinese perspective, we might hear different biases of the same historical event. However, that does not mean that the objective claims made by these reports should be discarded. Planes did fly into the twin towers, the towers did fall, thousands were killed. Thos are the facts. Similarly, Jesus did do miracles, He did raise people from the dead, He did die on the cross, and He did raise again three days later.)
This is one possible (and I think likely) explanation. For more information on the Gospels and other New Testament books, I strongly recommend Donald Guthrie’s “New Testament Introduction.”
The 4 gospels consist of the books written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John concerning the life and works of Jesus of Nazareth.
Luke begins his book with this statement, “Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.” This would seem to imply that although Luke may have been present for some of the events, he is writing from a researcher’s perspective who is compiling information gathered from multiple sources. Thus, we should expect the book of Luke to be written in the third person. However, from this passage we can also assume that other written records of the life of Jesus had already been written by the time Luke sat down to write his account. Furthermore, the book of Luke is continued in Acts, where we see the “we passages” in Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, and 27:1-28:16. Here it seems as though Luke personally joins Paul in his journeys and no longer writes in the third person but in the first.
Mark was not an eyewitness of the life of Jesus, but rather recorded Peter’s eyewitness accounts as Peter’s disciple and interpreter. As an Apostle, Peter was an eyewitness and it has been historically recorded that Mark “made no mistake” and did not include “any false statement” as he recorded Peter’s first hand account. Around 180 AD, Irenaeus wrote “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, …handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching.” This would explain why Mark wrote his gospel in the third person, for he himself did not see the events recorded.
John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, is credited with authorship of the gospel that bears his name. There is discussion among Biblical scholars as to if John was indeed the author of the gospel or not. In John 1:14, it can be read “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory.” The use of “us” and “we” as pronouns in the Greek would most reasonably imply that the author had witnessed at least some of the events firsthand. However, there is the possibility that the pronouns refer to all of humanity, and not to a firsthand account. The lack of any reference to the Apostle John in the book (when he is mentioned over 20 times in the other gospels), the referring of John the Baptist as simply “John” and the consistent reference to the “disciple whom Jesus loved” are peculiarities that those denying John’s authorship must address. It is also noteworthy, as per your question, that the other biblical books credited to John in authorship (1,2,3 John and Revelation) are written in the first person.
Matthew is generally thought to be the true author of the gospel that bears his name as well. This leaves John and Matthew as eyewitnesses who likely wrote of their experiences in the third person. So why would they have written in the third person instead of the first person? There are several reasons why this is the case.
It was a fairly standard practice in ancient writing to refer to oneself in the third person. We find this, for example, in Xenophon’s Expedition of Cyrus and Caesar’s Commentaries. Given this fact, it is not particularly surprising that Matthew and John adopt the same convention; it is certainly not evidence against Matthew’s or John’s authorship of the Gospels that bear their names. But what do we make of John’s writing in first person throughout his other biblical books? The main difference between the Gospels and the other books of the New Testament is that the Gospels function primarily as biographies for Christ and His ministry. John’s four other biblical books are either intended for teaching, encouraging and correcting a particular person or group (1,2,3 John) or to report to specific churches what the Lord had revealed to him through revelation regarding the end times and the final judgment (Revelation). These were more personal letters than biographies.
The purpose of all the Gospels is clear. A written account of what happened during Jesus ministry was not needed during the lifetimes of those that had actually been there and witnessed it. This is why we do not need to write textbooks today discussing what happened on September 11, 2001. There are many reputable people who we can ask personally about the happenings of that day when thousands died during the terrorists attacks on the US. However, it should be expected that at some point, someone who was there will take the time to write down everything they deem important about that day so that their memories will not die with them. This would be the case with the Gospels regarding Jesus Christ. However, just as the person writing about 9/11 might see fit to exclude themselves from their written record to maintain a sense of objectivity for the reader (few history books are ever written in first person except when they make quotations), we might expect Matthew and John to put their focus on the objective realities of what Christ said and did, and not on their subjective thoughts or insights. Their deep respect of the subject at hand, namely Jesus, prevented them from inserting themselves as characters in a historical setting that was much bigger than themselves.
(As a side note, it might be argued that the gospel writers were biased in their writings in favor of Christ. The proper response to this would not be to argue against such a bias, but to argue as to how the bias had affected their reporting of the objective historical events. For example, 100 years from now if we had two accounts of 9/11, one from the American perspective, and one from the Chinese perspective, we might hear different biases of the same historical event. However, that does not mean that the objective claims made by these reports should be discarded. Planes did fly into the twin towers, the towers did fall, thousands were killed. Thos are the facts. Similarly, Jesus did do miracles, He did raise people from the dead, He did die on the cross, and He did raise again three days later.)
This is one possible (and I think likely) explanation. For more information on the Gospels and other New Testament books, I strongly recommend Donald Guthrie’s “New Testament Introduction.”
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Does God have Free Will? Could He Choose to Do Evil?
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.
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.
Friday, August 13, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
