Does Prayer = World Peace?

On Monday, my wife and I finally went on our postponed Valentine's date, and on our drive home saw a billboard that caught our attention. The billboard featured pictures of different people from obviously different faiths - Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, etc. - all praying. The caption read, "A World at Prayer is a World at Peace." This is a well-intentioned sentiment from the well-intentioned Family Theater Productions, but it also happens to be a fatally flawed one.

On the face of it, in fact, this statement is patently false, if one takes "peace" here to mean the absence of war and aggression, or harmony and concord between individuals and groups (which I think is what they are getting at by globalizing it to the "world"), rather than a kind of individual inner peace. For example - Islamic suicide bombers pray fervently before strapping the bombs to their bodies. American soldiers pray fervently before entering the battlefield. (Note: I am not not necessarily drawing any moral equivalency between the two, but merely noting the presence of prayer in each scenario.) It doesn't seem to me that there is anything inherent in prayer in a generic sense that in any way ensures peace.

This also seem to view prayer from an anthropocentric, pluralist perspective. In other worlds, the focus seems to be on the human activity of prayer, rather than the object of prayer (God, Allah, etc.). Implicit in this statement and graphic, it seems to me, is the idea that it really doesn't matter to whom or what you pray, because really its the human psychological effect of prayer played out in the socio-political arena that makes for a state of peace in the world.

There certainly is a sense in which prayer can have a transforming effect on the one praying, but as a theist I can never lose sight of the fact that I am praying to someone independent of my own psychological state. The focus of prayer in my worldview is theocentric (God-centered), not anthropocentric (man-centered). And peace's common denominator cannot be prayer; the things that make for peace lie outside of this particular human endeavor. In fact, I believe a worldwide state of peace is by nature unattainable for a fallen world - the strife between each other stems ultimately from our own strife with our Creator.

Minding My Marriage

The older I get, the more important it is to me that, above almost all else, my wife knows my mind. And the more deep contentment I feel knowing that she does. I have a truly amazing wife.

Tom Gilson on the Beauty of Christ

Tom Gilson, of Thinking Christian (one of the best blogs out there, in my humble opinion) has just posted an incredibly well-articulated blogpost focusing on the unique beauty of Jesus Christ. This post is the first of a short series that answers the question, "why believe in Jesus Christ?" and focuses not on the rational arguments for belief in the truth of Christianity, but on the compelling nature of the man Himself, whose name we also bear. I deeply appreciate Tom and his ability to put these things into words. Go read it - it will be time well-spent, regardless of what you think on the matter.

Dawkins In the Crucible, Part 1

As I was sitting in the doctor's office (after finally admitting the need for antibiotics) last month waiting to have my three minute, $75-out-of-pocket appointment, I picked up the November issue of Time magazine which featured the debate between atheist Richard Dawkins (Oxford professor, New York Times bestselling author of The God Delusion, and one of "New Atheists") and Christian geneticist Francis Collins (director of the National Human Genome Research Institute). Besides immediately noticing the writer's bias in the opening paragraph ("In recent years, creationism took on new currency as the spiritual progenitor of "intelligent design" (I.D.), a scientifically worded attempt to show that blanks in the evolutionary narrative are more meaningful than its very convincing totality"), the article got me thinking about Dawkins' arguments and, though rivers of virtual ink have been spilled elsewhere on the blogosphere on this subject, prompted me to post some responses of my own to some of Dawkins' reasoning and the exchange in general. This post will be dedicated to one point he made; others will follow examining some of his other claims and how Collins responded (in no particular order other than what strikes my fancy first).

At one point in the interview/debate, Dawkins made the point he has made elsewhere (as have others in recent years) regarding the problem that the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of physics to enable the existence of life has posed for naturalists:

TIME: Both your books suggest that if the universal constants, the six or more characteristics of our universe, had varied at all, it would have made life impossible. Dr. Collins, can you provide an example?

COLLINS: The gravitational constant, if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. When you look at that evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. But if you are willing to consider the possibility of a designer, this becomes a rather plausible explanation for what is otherwise an exceedingly improbable event--namely, our existence.

DAWKINS: People who believe in God conclude there must have been a divine knob twiddler who twiddled the knobs of these half-dozen constants to get them exactly right. The problem is that this says, because something is vastly improbable, we need a God to explain it. But that God himself would be even more improbable.

This remark only goes to show how limited and wedded to his own philosophical naturalism Dawkins truly is - it is a straw man, but judging from what I have read of Dawkins, he is incapable of seeing this due to his commitment to naturalism. Why is it a straw man argument? First, the concept of "vast improbability" needs to be contextualized. When we say this fine-tuning is "vastly improbable," we mean it is improbable given a closed system of natural causes. In other words, probability (in loose and simplified terms) refers to the likelihood that such-and-such would happen given the laws of nature. We cannot lose sight of this context in this discussion.

The second and third points follow from the first: no thinking Christian theist worth his salt is going to claim that God is subject to natural causes for an explanation of his existence. Hence, labeling God as an "improbability" is simply a category error - God is not the kind of thing that is subject to the laws of nature, even in principle (note: I am not arguing for the existence of God here; I am saying that God as conceived and argued by Christians, which is what Dawkins is trying to refute, cannot in principle be refuted by appealing to improbabilities. Though the probability of a naturalistic explanation for the laws of physics being fine-tuned to allow for life can be argued against validly, in that it fulfills the category requirements of probabilities - which is the starting point for Intelligent Design). So Dawkins is arguing against a straw man in that he is positing a God no Christian theists (barring possibly Mormons) believe in, though it seems to me that there is a bit of slight-of-hand going on here on Dawkins' part that makes this hard to see.

So, to sum up: 1) Probabilities are things that apply only to natural phenomena; 2) God does not exist as a natural phenomenon; therefore 3) probabilities do not apply to the existence of God, and any arguments against the existence of God based on his supposed improbable nature commit a category error and are fallacious. Moreover, if all natural explanations for the fine-tuning problem fall prey to vast improbabilities or unverifiable/unfalsifiable assertions (see my next installment for more on this), and invoking an intelligent designer as an explanation does not in fact appeal to an even greater improbability, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the theist offers the better explanation for this problem.

Classical Christian Education

My post last month which quoted Dorothy Sayers' The Lost Tools of Learning came out of my wife's and my current study of the Classical Education model versus the Modern Education model. Though we have always assumed we would probably send our kids through the public school system (both my wife and I teach or have taught in it), we are currently reevaluating those plans and being strongly drawn to the classical approach for a variety of reasons. Subsequent posts from this one will be devoted to examining those reasons, but as we have one toddler and one three-year-old who will soon be entering school age, this topic is one we need to think seriously and thoroughly about now; so we've stocked up on some reading material to try and get a handle on the different issues involved. It seems as though our public school system is reaping the harvest of its foundational philosophical commitments ; but meanwhile, a resurgence of the Classical model of education is happening in private and home schools throughout the country, with much success (as I would view it).

Thus I was very interested to read one of the latest posts at The Dawntreader, a blog with a focus similar to mine, that dealt with this very subject (serendipity?). Though my comments here are not very explanatory and brief by design, I would encourage anyone reading with an interest in this to start first with the Sayers essay linked above, or follow the Dawntreader post and the links he provides to find out more. I'll be sharing more thoughts on this later as I move from fact-finding mode to reflection, examination and decision-making, but my initial reaction is that this sounds like the way I would want my children to be taught, and it answers a lot of the concerns I have with the current state of public education in the US.

Monotheists = haters?

Melinda Penner over at the Stand to Reason Blog commented today on a statement made by Ralph Peters in an op-ed on Real Clear Politics, latching onto an almost throw-away assertion made by Peters as he gave insight into the distictions among Muslims and how they impact the current situation in Iraq. Though not central to his main purpose, the comment he made ("All monotheist religions have been really good haters. We just take turns.") led Melinda to not only rightly question its accuracy, but also to articulate one of the best summary responses I have read to the assumption behind claims like this:

There is a common assumption these days that belief in God, conviction in the truth of one's religious convictions that logically means one believes others are wrong, necessarily leads to hate and violence. That is fundamentally wrong. What leads to hate or love is the nature of the God one worships and the tenants of the faith one practices. Monotheistic religions vary significantly in these details. Sometimes followers of religion carry out acts at odds with their religion. Religion can be abused and misused. And citing abuses cannot support wide-scale dismissals of religion.

More clear thinking like this is needed in the public square to dismantle faulty logic and assertions that go unquestioned in our confused age.

The Problem of Problems

I have been around the block long enough now in the Christian apologetics, theism vs. atheism, naturalism vs. supernaturalism, moral relativism vs. moral objectivism (etc.) neighborhood to be able to say very honestly that Christianity has its problems. So does theism in general. And so does atheism, and naturalism, and relativism. I continue to find the problems with atheism, naturalism, and all the other associated isms to be more difficult and insurmountable than those facing Christian theism, but the fact remains: not one worldview I have encountered is free of problems.

So, in the vein of such arguments as the Problem of Evil and the Problem of Divine Hiddenness, I am starting to become aware that there is an existential Problem of Problems for anyone who examines worldviews and systems of thought. Unlike these other Problems, however, this one does not reside in the system itself. In other words, the Problem of Evil points to an alleged inconsistency or dilemma located in the worldview of Christian theism; the Problem of Complexity, or the Problem of Being from Non-Being, within naturalism. But my newly-coined problem is not specific to a particular worldview; one could almost call it a meta-problem, as it overarches all worldviews. One cannot even begin to examine a worldview without being confronted with this existentially taxing snag.

So now for me the question is, what is the source of this problem? Is this simply indicative of the fact that worldview examination is a human endeavor? I am a thorough-going realist; I believe that there is a world out there, independent of me or anyone else, which presents itself in a way that I can know true things about it. But I also know that human understanding is finite and, even should one possess a worldview that accurately represents how the world really is, the perception of problems would still persist. So one possibility is that the problem lies in human perception. But I have just started thinking about this, and am open to other ideas. Any thoughts?

Sorry I've been gone...

...but life sometimes has no respect for blogging commitments. My family has, over the last two weeks, faced three separate virus strains, mostly hitting the kids, but not sparing my wife and me. Consequently, my time at home has been largely devoted to either being sick, taking care of sick kids, or helping my sick wife take care of sick kids. So to my small cadre of readers and friends, I'm sorry you haven't seen anything new here for a couple of weeks. I hope to continue posting regularly from here on out, though, so keep checking back, and thanks for reading!