Merry Christmas!

My oldest son is four, and the whole Christmas thing is really getting fun now. I had to tuck him in super-fast, so he could go to sleep and get to Christmas morning sooner. It is really special to view Christmas through the eyes of a child again.

Merry Christmas, everyone (and to my friends across the pond, Happy Christmas)!

Since God became flesh and dwelt among us, I pray that you would truly behold His glory this season and, if you don't already know Him, find out just who the man was that baby grew to be.

Craig's Cosmological Argument - Cause Qualities and Conclusions

These are my notes from an argument given by William Lane Craig in a debate - specifically, his Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. I don't agree with Craig on everything (most notably his Molinism), but he's no slouch of a philosopher and apologist - the man can put together a powerful line of reasoning, and I think this is one of his best. Enjoy, and if you have any thoughts, I'd love to discuss them in the comments!


Craig’s Cosmological Argument – Cause Qualities and Conclusions

1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause
2. The universe began to exist
Supporting evidence: Big Bang Cosmology and the Law of Entropy
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

If the universe has a cause, such a cause must have a number of striking qualities:

As the cause of space and time, this cause must transcend space and time, and must therefore:

a. exist non-temporally and non-spatially (at least without the universe)

b. be changeless and immaterial

1. something can be timeless only if it is unchanging
2. something can be unchanging only if it is immaterial

c. must be unimaginably powerful

1. since it created all matter, space and time

d. must be personal

1. the only entities we know of which can be timeless and immaterial are either minds or abstract objects (e.g., numbers)
2. but, abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations
3. therefore, the transcendent cause of the universe must be an unembodied mind
   

Only a free agent can account for the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause

1. if the cause of the universe were an impersonal, mechanically operating cause, then the cause could never exist without its effect
2. for if the sufficient condition of the effect is given, then the effect must be given as well
3. the only way for the cause to be timeless but for its effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any antecedent determining conditions
   

Conclusion from the Cosmological Argument:
A personal creator of the universe exists, who is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful.

One reason I love theology

I'm listening through a debate right now on infant/covenantal baptism vs. believers' baptism, and was just struck by a thought. One of the things I love about Christian theology is that, if it's true, it is of eternal and utmost importance; if it's false, it is a colossal waste of time. There is no middle ground.

Okay, I'm a geek, but that's my idea of living on the edge :)

Relativism: A misuse of terms

There's nothing like a little frustration to awaken me, a la Kant, from my "blogmatic" slumbers (haha).

Recently, Greg Koukl, President of Stand to Reason, was on Stu Epperson's show TruthTalkLive to discuss/debate (though I hesitate to use that term here) with Bob Enyart, a Christian talk show host from Colorado, on the question, "Should a Christian ever vote for a pro-choice candidate?" You can listen to it here. Greg took the affirmative, arguing that the greater moral imperative is to realistically and pragmatically save the most lives possible, even if that means voting for a pro-choice candidate, if that candidate is the lesser of two evils, and a vote for a third party candidate would ensure that the worse of the two realistic candidates would take office. Bob took the negative, arguing that supporting someone who is pro-choice, regardless of pragmatic concerns, is morally despicable in the eyes of God, and likened it to the Herodians of 1st century Palestine.

My point here is not to get into the arguments, for or against. What was frustrating was that several times during the show, Bob Enyart accused Greg of being a moral relativist (along with a few other things, such as a situational ethicist and a legal positivist) without displaying any evidence that he understood what those terms mean or how in the world they would apply to someone like Greg. (Anyone who would call Greg a moral relativist clearly doesn't understand what the term means, or at least can't identify the type of argument with which he is being presented.) On top of that, he kept using horribly fallacious lines of argument (e.g., Giuliani is a "mass-murderer", so you can't believe he's telling the truth when he says he'll appoint conservative, constructionist judges). And on top of that, he was rather beligerent and unprofessional in his manner of discussion - a steamroller, as some would call it, rarely letting Greg finish a thought before interrupting, and consistently putting words in Greg's mouth that he plainly didn't say.

It didn't end there, however. In the comment section for that show on the TruthTalkLive blog, commenter after commenter proceeded to apply labels inaccurately to Greg, misrepresent his position and views, and display overall deplorable reasoning skills. (Here, here and here are some examples.) I am reminded of why James White calls blog comment sections "Internet Ignorance Aggregators." I made a few contributions to try to help clear up the confusion. Here are some excerpts:

You all have no idea what “moral relativism” means... one thing you can’t call [Greg's position] is moral relativism - unless you also don’t object to me calling you all a bag of potato chips. Words have meaning...

Greg claiming that Christians have an objective moral obligation to, by choosing the lesser of two evils, act in such a way as to produce the greatest moral good - in this case, saving the innocent lives of future aborted unborn humans - is NOT moral relativism...Now, if he were to say that he thinks he should vote for Giuliani, but if you as a Christian think you shouldn't, then that’s what’s right for you - THAT’S moral relativism.

...would someone care to explain to me how Greg Koukl, when he says that all Christians everywhere have an objective moral obligation to act in such a way as to produce the greatest good, is being a moral relativist? Like I said, perhaps he’s got his objective morality wrong - maybe there is a greater moral imperative that would apply here. You can argue that. Maybe he’s wrong in his assessment of the efficacy of his recommendation (voting for Giuliani as the lesser of two evils) in achieving the moral outcome (preserving the loss of innocent life through abortion) - maybe there is no greater chance of conservative, even pro life judges being appointed to the Supreme court with Giuliani as president vs. Hillary. You can argue that, too. But it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to make him say something he’s not, and the last thing he’s saying is that the moral rules that apply to this decision are relative.

I promise, I'm not pointing to controversy for controversy's sake. Okay, I'm a little upset that a man I respect and admire is being falsely accused, but that aside, here's my concern: I'm worried that "relativism", in virtue of it having become a dirty word among most evangelical Christians, and compounded by the rather disheartening state of modern American Evangelicalism's critical thinking skills, is now being used much like "intolerant" is used (abused) in our mainstream culture - as a conversation stopper and a signal that no more rational argumentation is needed to condemn someone. I'm also concerned with the lack of careful thinking on the part of Christians making a statement in the public square. As an anonymous commenter wrote in response to the problems I addressed:

If we want our opinions to be taken seriously, we must learn to construct coherent arguments. Too often Christians are guilty of throwing out far more heat than light. Inflaming the debate with ad hominem attacks and misunderstanding the meaning of moral relativism only make us look uninformed. I am not saying that I side with Koukl. I am only trying to plead for more sound argumentation.

I'd agree, and add that, as I view both Greg and Bob as my brothers in Christ, and inasmuch as we are all trying to be pleasing to our God, our Lord is not honored by sloppy thinking and inaccurate accusations, particularly coming from those to whom other Christians are looking for leadership. "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment." (James 3:1) We can - and should - do better than this, Mr. Enyart.

Are you trying to be cool, Christian?

"Coolness is heretical. Or at least the pursuit of it is."

So says The Scriptorium's Matt Jensen in his latest post, The Heresy of Cool.

Give it a read. Is he right? Let me know what you think in the comments.

The Gaze of the Holy God

Though I am a big fan of RC Sproul and a joyful supporter of Ligonier Ministries, I had not yet gotten around to reading what some consider to be his most powerful book - The Holiness of God. Written over twenty years ago, it is considered a standard work and a masterpiece by almost every Christian reviewer I've read. Finally deciding to take it up, I read the first chapter last night, and would like to describe my experience.

I say experience rather than thoughts because I am beginning to understand why many people have called this a life-changing, send-you-to-your-knees kind of book. Most say they finished it in a single sitting, and it left them forever changed. Thankfully my wife is sick, and I didn't want to keep the light on, or I'm sure I would have stayed up all night (as I've often done in the past) to finish the thing.

Be that as it may, after I read the first chapter, entitled "The Holy Grail" (in which RC recounts the first time that he, as a young Christian, really caught a glimpse of God's holiness), I lay awake in bed staring blindly at the darkened ceiling. I could not sleep. I was laid bare to the core. I felt the great weight of the gaze of the Almighty, the Eye of Heaven, Creator of the universe, stripping my heart bare, and I knew that I was as nothing compared to Him who saw into my innermost parts. It was truly awful, in the literal sense of the word - a moment full of awe, my finitude glimpsing His infinitude; my hidden deceits exposed to His pure, terrible goodness. I think I understand a very small part of what Isaiah meant when he said, "I am undone."

And yet, that was not all. There was not just this terrible weight. There was something else. As I lay there in bed, my heart an open window to heaven, I knew that I was known. I was - and am - known far better that I will ever know myself. And if His presence was strong, his chiding was gentle. Have you ever seen the gentleness of great strength? Say, a man, whose hands could crush you, tenderly holding a newborn, a "gentle giant," as my mom says? With my walls down, there was no need to thunder at me. And this gentleness spoke to me of love (though a terrifyingly infinite love). It was not a force that gazed into my heart, that made it's immense weight felt in my soul; it was a Person.

I am no artist, but this experience left me with more of a mental image than words, so I thought I'd try to reproduce it here. I don't know if this is any more elucidating than my inadequate words, but I couldn't get the image out of my head. Go easy on me :)

I have no idea if any of this makes sense, or if I'm coming close to describing the impression God left on me last night. I do know that, though I've been a Christian for years, and have gained glimpses of God's holiness before, He opened my eyes to Him in a way that I sorely needed and which echoes RC's own experience. I get exactly what he's saying. I hope to offer a review of the whole book here once I'm done, but if the first chapter and my previous experience with Sproul's teaching are any indication, this one's going right to my top five list of most-recommended books.

Being Good for Goodness' Sake

Sorry I've been gone so long - school has started up, and I just haven't had the time to invest here as I would like.

But hey, even if I can't produce anything good right now, at least I can point you to someone who is! Paul Scott Pruett recently examined the objection to Christian morality that says one shouldn't do good things to get a reward (i.e. heaven) but rather because those things are good in and of themselves - being "good for goodness' sake." His post is called Santa Claus Morality, and it's well worth the read. Go check it out, and tell him I sent ya!

"Logos" Understood In Context

I got into a conversation over at the Stand to Reason blog with, among others, an old sparring partner of mine, the Mormom Heideggerian Kevin Winters (I hope he won't mind me calling him that, but it's the most concise way of describing his position I am capable of - and if you don't know what a "Heideggerian" is, don't worry about it, or visit his blog and jump into continental philosophy to find out). The conversation centered on the translating of "logos" in John 1 as "logic" or "reason" in defense of the claim that logic comes from the very nature of God Himself. My response to Kevin ended up being so unexpectedly long and (hopefully) cogent that I decided to post it here as a blog entry. Who knows - maybe someone out there in this big great blogosphere will find my thoughts on this somewhat helpful. In any event, I put so much time into it that I thought it would be a waste not to put it up here.

Kevin's comment to which I was responding read:

The interpretation of Logos in John 1:1 as "logic" is highly anachronistic. Was John a closet Aristotelian philosopher? No, he was a common Jewish fisherman. F.F. Bruce said it best:

"No doubt the English term 'Word' is an inadequate rendering of the Greek logos, but it would be difficult to find one less inadequate... But if logos is not completely meaningless to an ordinary reader, it probably suggest something like 'reason', and that is more misleading than 'Word'. A 'word' is a means of communication, the expression of what is in one's mind...

"The term logos was familiar in some Greek philosophical schools, where it denoted the principle of reason or order immanent in the universe, the principle which imposes form on the material world and constitutes the rational soul in man. It is not in Greek philosophical usage, however, that the background of John's thought and language should be sought. Yet, because of that usage, logos constituted a bridge-word by which people brought up in Greek philosophy, like Justin Martyr in the second century, found their way into Johannine Christianity.

"The true background of John's thought and language is found not in Greek philosophy but in Hebrew revelation. The 'word of God' in the Old Testament denotes God in action, especially in creation, revelation and deliverance."The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, 29.

The use of John 1:1 as a proof text for the necessity of logic is silly.

Here is my response.

I agree that:

1) John was not a closet Aristotelian philosopher

2) "logos" as "reason" (as understood by some strands of Greek philosophical thought, and as modern readers here are understanding it) may not communicate exactly what the author of the fourth Gospel was trying to convey, and

3) Bruce is mostly correct when he says, "The true background of John's thought and language is found not in Greek philosophy but in Hebrew revelation. The 'word of God' in the Old Testament denotes God in action, especially in creation, revelation and deliverance."

However, it is my studied opinion that a closer look at both the cultural and textual context reveals a fuller understanding of John's use of "logos" in his gospel than you or Bruce (who I fully admit is a much more qualified scholar than myself to speak on this) seem to be suggesting. Don't take that humble admission too far, though - I do have other scholarship on my side here, and am not pitting myself alone against Bruce.

The gospel of John was written during the time that the early church was dealing with the rise of proto- and early Gnosticism. (As I'm sure you know, Gnosticism varied greatly, but the basic belief was one inherited from Platonism - that all matter is evil. Consequently, according to the Gnostics, Christ did not "come in the flesh," or have a real body - since bodies are matter, matter is evil, and a divine being could not be joined to such an evil thing - but instead his appearance as a man was an illusion.)

In any event, this notion was in play when John wrote his gospel. In fact, the epistles attributed to the apostle John, who is also traditionally credited as writing the fourth gospel, were direct attacks on Gnosticism in its early form as it began to sway the first century church (2 John 1:7 - "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.").

Within this context, then, it is important to perhaps look at the prologue as a whole to understand just how the author was using "logos". If one were a Gnostic reading it, one would be happily trucking right along and have no problem with the first thirteen verses. Suddenly, though, verse 14 hits:

"And the Word (logos) became flesh (sarx)"

What? says the Gnostic. The divine logos could NOT become flesh! (Bear in mind that sarx was the equivalent of dung, or an even stronger term perhaps, to the Gnostic mind. Furthermore, in the Greek these two terms are situated right next to each other, so the juxtaposition could not have been sharper.)

I think this textual and cultural context gives amazing insight into John's usage of "logos". He was certainly aware of the Gnostic claim, and also how they would understand in some fashion what he was talking about when he applied "logos", a term they were probably quite familiar with and to which they had tied certain associations. That he used this term, then stresses that the "logos" became flesh, became matter, argues powerfully that he had this sort of polemic in mind when writing his gospel. I see verse 14 as being the key to understanding John’s point of using logos – to incisively cut down the Gnostic view of Christ, something he would be keen to do, given that he had lived with the man for three years and was witness to both his divinity AND his humanity. I think we don’t give John, or the other apostles for that matter, enough credit when we call them merely common Jewish fishermen. These guys certainly encountered the philosophies hostile to Christianity that were circulating in the ancient world of the first century, and had adequate tools with which to combat them – not only that, but an empowerment by the Holy Spirit to do so. I see John 1 as evidence of that, though really the New Testament is full of more.

Now, I actually do think that later, more Greek-oriented thinkers (such as Justin Martyr) probably took the Logos doctrine farther that John intended. But I don’t think that an understanding of the Greek usage of the term was totally missing from the author’s mind or intent when he wrote his famous prologue. I actually think he was using the enemies own ideas against them – attempting to impale them on their own sword, so to speak.

UPDATE 10/4/07: Upon further reflection and reading, I decided I should probably have used the more specific term "docetism" rather than the much wider "gnosticism" to avoid confusion.

Hard Mind, Soft Heart

The best combination for a Christian is a hard mind and a soft heart. Without both in equal measure, one's life in Christ and ability to fulfill God's calling suffer. Moreover, both are equally objects of conformation.

Matthew 10:16 - Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.

1 Corinthians 14:20 - Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.

"We don't offer a system"

I admire what Lee Strobel is doing in defense of the Christian faith, and I really admire him for posting so many good video clips on his website, free of charge, featuring some top Christian thinkers addressing important subjects. One clip brought to my attention today, however, is a little problematic from my perspective (and puzzling, because it seems to undercut Strobel's whole enterprise, though to be fair, it's not Lee's position). It features a portion of an interview with Scot McKnight and seems to be focused on Gnosticism and the reliability of the New Testament texts. Pay close attention to the last half, when Scot addresses Lee's second question. Here it is.

OK, done? I don't know about you, but it looks to me like another stroll down Self-referential Lane:

Just after making an argument for the latecomer Gnostics' attempt to make themselves the heroes and the earlier orthodox church the dopes, and in the midst of making his argument about what brings people to Jesus and presenting a system in which this view operates, McKnight says,

"The reason [the Gospel account of Jesus] is believable is because it's Jesus. This is all the church has to offer. We don't offer arguments, we don't offer a better system, we offer Jesus."

We don't offer arguments? Tell that to Paul. Or to the many other Christians who are busy doing just that. Furthermore, why then are you arguing this point?

We don't offer a better system? What does McKnight think he is offering when he effectively says that "offering Jesus" is the best way to go? It's a system, too.

Now, don't get me wrong. I agree that we do, in a very real way, offer Jesus, and that an important way God draws people to Christ is through this kind of direct encounter through the pages of the New Testament. I would actually argue that an encounter with the risen Jesus on a personal level (and by that I mean "seeing" Jesus through the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit) is necessary for a saving faith. I even agree with McKinght's very next statement: "Jesus is good enough to attract people to himself."

What I don't get is the false dichotomy. It's as if you either present Jesus, or you present rational arguments and a coherent system, but heaven forbid you try to offer both. That kind of radical dichotomy is not only unreasonable, but it is downright unbiblical. I wonder how much time McKnight and others who at least seemingly view it like this have spent studying Paul's apologetic and proclamatory methodology. McKnight must have a woefully anemic view of "system" to think that the worldview inherent in the message of Christ is free from any systematic element. If we offer, through the person of Christ, a true view of reality, then we are indeed offering a better system, and you can't separate the person of Christ from the way Jesus in fact saw the world.

HT: Brett Kunkle/Stand to Reason

Bultmann's Fundamental Mistake

Alright, enough with the lightweight posts. Time to get back to dealing with things of substance in a substantive way. This one may take a little bit of foundation-laying, but bear with me - the point at the end, I think, is good - if you're a logic and theology geek like me and actually like this stuff, that is. My apologies if you aren't.

One of the things I have been studying lately are the various prominent theologians of the 20th century and their thought. The last century saw a strong reaction against the liberalism of the 1800's (which sought to discard or reinterpret the old doctrines of orthodoxy where they seemed problematic to the modern mind), mainly (or at least initially) in the form of the so-called neo-orthodoxy or dialectical theology of Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann. These two men were at odds with each other in some significant ways - so much so that Barth accused Bultmann of reverting to the old liberalism they were attempting to demolish and replace - but have been included together under the common umbrella term of "dialectical theology" by historical theologians because of a stress from both men, contra liberalism, of the differences between God and humanity. While much more could be said about both men (which I may do later on), it is on this last point in regards to Bultmann's theology on the nature and knowledge of God that I would like to offer some comments.

Bultmann (1884-1976) was not a systematic theologian, but during his life as a career scholar he enjoyed a high standing among academia as a major New Testament scholar. After an initial foray into the dialectical theology of the 1920s, he became deeply influenced by existentialism (particularly that of Martin Heidegger) and allied this somewhat paradoxically with his deep interest in historical explanations and biblical studies to produce a brand-new restatement of the message of the New Testament - a sort of Christian existentialism. He is best known for his program of demythologizing, the task of restating Christianity in language that made sense to people with a modern, "scientific" worldview by stripping it of the outdated, "mythological" worldview in which it had first appeared. In other words, there was a core of theological truth contained in Scripture, but you had to get rid of the mythology (such as supernatural occurrences, expectations, and the worldview that made these possible) to find it and understand it as a modern. (Though motivated differently, this view in many ways put him in the same bed as the old liberals.)

This idea rested on what Bultmann saw as the most important message[1] to be extracted from the New Testament: God. A great God far above and vastly different from the material world and the humans who inhabit it - so far beyond us, in fact, that there is no way we can know Him, or even speak sensibly of Him at all. God is not an object out in the universe at which we can point, an existing thing; He is the underpinning reality of every object and the whole universe, the basis of existence itself. This position was not new; theologically, it has roots in the Cappadocian Fathers of the East, Pseudo-Dionysius propounded it in the 6th century, and Thomas Aquinas produced probably the most highly developed and sophisticated version of this in church history. His view, from whence Bultmann takes his cue, is basically that God transcends everything, even our ways of thinking, to the point that no statement we make about Him can do Him justice - and because of this we can't really say anything about Him at all, at least not in the same way we could say something about a ball, or a chair, or my cousin Rob.

Bultmann recognized, as did Aquinas, that this view of God is problematic when one is attempting to do theology - that is, speaking of God. Aquinas found his way out by using analogy - in other words, when we say God is a certain thing (e.g., good, powerful, wise, etc.) we are just using analogical language, the best that we have, attempting, as accurately as possible, to describe the indescribable. Bultmann, however, took a different route:

If "speaking of God" is understood as "speaking about God," the such speaking has no meaning whatever, for its subject, God, is lost in the very moment it takes place. Whenever the idea, God, comes to mind, it connotes that God is the Almighty; in other words, God is the reality determining all else...Every "speaking about" presupposes a standpoint external to that which is being talked about. But there cannot be any standpoint which is external to God. Therefore it is not legitimate to speak about God in general statements, in universal truths which are valid without references to the concrete, existential position of the speaker.[2]

Historian Jonathan Hill sums it up this way:

In other words, instead of trying to make objective statements about God, we should speak about our own subjective experience. Because our existence is dependent on God, understanding ourselves will allow us to understand him.[3]

I certainly don't agree with Barth on everything, but I stand behind him in refutation of that point. We do not understand God by understanding ourselves. God has revealed himself to us through the person of Jesus and propositionally through His written Word. The Christianity of the apostles and martyrs is built not off of introspection, but upon revelation.

But even if Hill's isn't an accurate summation of Bultmann's point, a problem still remains. Do you see it? It is so fundamental that it shapes the rest of his errant theology. Every worldview begins with an ultimate reality, and out of that the rest flows. Every religion, every theology begins with a view of God, upon which the rest finds its logical base. It's sort of like using a level when beginning to build a house - mess it up there, and the whole thing will be off.

Let me break Bultmann's argument here down into a syllogism to aid in getting at the problem:

1) God is the reality determining all else.

2) Every "speaking about" presupposes a standpoint external to that which is being talked about.

3) But there cannot be any standpoint which is external to God.

4) Therefore it is not legitimate to speak about God in general statements, in universal truths which are valid without references to the concrete, existential position of the speaker.

The flaw in his reasoning can be seen in premise 2). It is patently and demonstrably false, and without this crucial premise, the thing won't fly. To show it is false, ask yourself these two questions: can you speak about yourself? If so, how could you be external to yourself?

The truth is, I can speak about myself. I can know objective things about myself, yet I am never once operating from a standpoint external to myself. Without this faulty premise, the conclusion is unwarranted. So for at least this consideration, the argument should be rejected. Moreover, one may be able to take issue with premise 3) by making the distinction between how one could be internal to God in one way (ground of existence) and external to him in another (personhood).

I call this (long) post "Bultmann's Fundamental Mistake" for this reason: his mistake here effectively drew the outline of the rest of his theology and seems to me to be the seed from whence his other errors sprung. This can serve as a healthy reminder to us to examine our fundamental worldview commitments - without an accurate level, the whole house becomes crooked and, in fact, dangerous.


---------------------------------------------------------


[1] This conclusion, that a Wholly Other God is the important message conveyed by Scripture behind the mythology, really is untenable and rather absurd, given his own view. If this is the core of the "mythological" worldview, how is it that one can be left with this utterly and foundationally mythological element (given his definition of such things) after one has stripped away the myth? (In other words, it makes no sense to say that latex is the most important element of the wall next to me if I say that I need to remove the latex paint to get to it.) And how can something fundamentally inconsistent with a "scientific" worldview be stated sensibly in that worldview at all? This is a dead giveaway that his whole system is flawed.

[2] What Does It Mean to Speak of God? I

[3] The History of Christian Thought, pp. 280.

This is just funny

Introducing...the iBible!

I love satire.

My favorite line: "It quotes itself out of context." (Though the disco ball is pretty darn hillarious, too.)

HT: The Reformed Baptist Thinker

Apologetic Methods

Have you ever had one of those weird experiences where you decide you need to read up on something, and suddenly almost everything you happen to see has to do with that thing? I've been studying the various apologetic methods within the Christian tradition lately, and one of those serendipitous - or providential - supplements to my own study materials was Barry Carey's excellent series of blog posts summarizing the book Five Views of Apologetics, Steven Cowan, editor. Though brief, Barry's summaries of each of the five contributors' views serve as a great introduction to the basic issues surrounding the various methods in Christian apologetics. His conclusion is pretty close to where I'm at right now as I have evaluated the different approaches, which I may post on later.

In any event, for those interested in this sort of thing, here are the links to the individual blogposts in the series:

Doing Apologetics [an introduction]
Classical Apologetics
Evidentialist Apologetics
Cumulative Case Apologetics
Presuppositional Apologetics
Reformed Epistemology Apologetics
My Apologetics Strategy [a conclusion]

Gone again...

Just wanted to let everyone know I'll be gone for the rest of this week. My wife and I are celebrating our tenth wedding anniversary, and we'll be gone on a trip - without the kids, no less. Needless to say, I won't be blogging :)

God willing, regular new posts will continue starting next week.

And thank you, Amy, for being my love and companion for the last decade. Every man should be blessed to have a wife like mine.

Koukl on Relativism - On Video - FOR FREE!

It turns out that Google Video has Greg Koukl's classic lecture on moral relativism (this one in particular given for the Vertitas Forum). Everyone I know should watch and think about this. Greg is one of the most clear-thinking guys I know, and this is his forte, or at least one of them. Here it is.

UPDATE 4/17/07: I'm not sure if this video is bootleg and infringing on STR's copyright, or if they would be kosher with it. I should probably check - if it is bootleg, I'll take it off. Does anyone know?

Elaborating on Evil

I meant to respond to a few of my commenters a while back, but life did as life does and prevented me at the time from doing so. Now that I have more time, I want to make sure I don't ignore the kind people who read and comment on my blog, so I'm going to bring those comments to which I'd like to respond back to the top of the queue. The first one is from my loooong-time friend Nick Jenkins regarding my April 20 post, In the Face of Evil. Nick said:

On the subject of Evil, I'm not sure this is a healthy way to deal with the situation. I think it aids people in distancing themselves from someone (like Dahmer) by saying "It's EVIL!". The fact is that he was a man. He had problems, serious ones, but none the less... he was a human being that fell apart at some point. Trying to recategorize him into something "mythic" to me kind of hurts the cause. It alleviates us as a society from trying to correct problems.

I appreciate Nick's concern, and if I were doing what he cautions against, I would be concerned as well. However, I think he has misunderstood the way I am using "evil" - perhaps I wasn't being very clear in my original post. In my understanding, "evil" is not some mythic category removed from the context of human nature. I don't view Dahmer, or Cho, as somehow less than human, ontologically, when I talk about them and their actions as being evil. When I look at someone who has done something evil, it is in full view of their humanity.

As a technical definition, evil is a privation, the absence of good, and not a thing in itself (taking a cue from Augustine) - in other words, that which deviates from the character of the God who is good. You'll recall that I spoke of "the core of evil in each of us"; I think that the pull, the desire to rebel against God's goodness is a part of each person's nature, yours and mine and Cho's, as broken image-bearers of our Creator. These men have done nothing that I myself, absent certain conditions, am not capable of doing. Evil, to me, is not an abstract; it is wound tightly around each individual's human nature. So I do not in any way lose sight of the fact that these are men (in the gender generic sense) doing these thing, nor do I endorse any view that would lead to this kind of distancing or a shirking of societal responsibilities.

As a side note, perhaps another difference at play here is one that I'm only inferring from what Nick wrote, so I can't be sure this is his actual position (please correct me, Nick, if I am wrong!). It seems to me that Nick is operating from the view of human nature similar to that made famous by Rousseau - that man is basically good and is only later corrupted by outside forces - whereas I see the seeds of man's corruption as being internal, pervasive, and present from the moment the individual becomes an individual. I may be wrong in attributing this to Nick, but it is an interesting subject that maybe I'll post on separately sometime later.

The Desire to Justify

British historian Paul Johnson has written a book entitled Intellectuals, in which he chronicles the life and thought of such (arguably) great minds as Rousseau, Marx, Russell and Sartre. His conclusion was that most of their arguments and philosophies were based, not on noble rational convictions but on the choices they had made in their own lives. (Ex: Rousseau had five children out of wedlock and abandoned them all. He then maintained that children do not need parents to give them guidance or discipline, and that the state should bear the responsibility for raising them - all this supposedly out of his reasoning, intellect and common sense.)

While I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of committing the genetic fallacy, it is hard to escape the view that conclusions like this are not based on true reason but rather on the desire to justify and rationalize the moral choices already made. In my case, I think this statement would be free of that particular fallacy because it isn't my basis for rejecting their ethical theories. But it is an interesting aside.

Defensiveness and guilt

I find I am the most defensive when I am feeling particularly guilty and inadequate. Are others no different?

Authority of Revelation vs. Reason

I had forgotten about and lost track of Paul Scott Pruett's blog, Pensées, over the last couple of years, but happily stumbled upon it again today, and this quote caught my eye:

If we reject reason in relation to biblical revelation, then the very words of God become nothing but unprocessed photons striking the retina.

A healthy reminder to those who reject all forms and uses of philosophy as Godless and unbiblical.

Derailed again...

Well, life has been intensely busy the last few weeks, reducing any time I might have to sit down and blog to virtually zero. I didn't even have time to post THAT I wouldn't have time. Sorry (again). Things are looking up, though - I have grand ambitions of study and productivity for my free time this summer, and hopefully this blog will reflect that with some regular and consistent posts. Hang in there, my small cadre of valiant readers!

House's Humanity

I don't watch TV much, but I do have a couple shows I really enjoy and watch rather religiously. My favorite show on right now is '24' - I like it not only for its intense pacing, (usually) inventive plot, and interesting character development, but also for the way it deals with ethical questions and moral theory played out in a sort of thought-experiment mock-reality.

The other show I watch fairly frequently is 'House' - though often the morality portrayed on this medical drama is questionable and should be viewed carefully. My interest with this show, however, is far more myopic; unlike '24' there aren't a number of reasons I find myself drawn to it. There's really only one: I think Dr. Gregory House's character, played wonderfully well by Hugh Laurie, is one of, if not the most interesting on television, and the other characters are great foils. In many ways, he is like a child that never grew up. In other ways, he is jaded beyond belief. I find his view of people, ethics, science, and God to be fascinating and instructive for me as I apply worldview analysis to his character.

For instance, last night's episode ended differently than all the others. Every time, House and his team have a last minute epiphany and diagnose the mysteriously (and ususally terminally) ill patient just in the nick of time. Not so last night. The patient died - died, in fact, directly as a result of a mistaken diagnosis and treatment by both House and Dr. Foreman that proved to be fatal. As Foreman was dealing with the guilt, he received the following advice from House: it doesn't matter how you feel. The numbers say that, though this kind of thing happens much more frequently to doctors in their line of work, they save many more lives and much more difficult cases than most other doctors, and the numbers don't lie. The guilty feeling is meaningless, because it is rooted in subjective emotion, and should be ignored.

As often is the case, though, House's quite inhuman comments collide headlong with his own very human actions. One of the subplots involved his best friend, his best friend's ex-wife, and their dog who lived with her but who wouldn't stop misbehaving since the ex-husband left. House had manipulated her for information, and then at the end of the show, after just having given Foreman this pep-talk on the illusory nature of guilt, ended up taking the dog in himself out of guilt. House's callous philosophical stance was undermined by his own undeniable humanity. He can espouse the outworkings of his presuppositions, but at key points in his humanity, he cannot live with them. This is the tension Francis Schaeffer spoke and wrote so often about:

...in fact, no non-Christian can be consistent to the logic of his presuppositions. The reason for this is simply that a man must live in reality and reality consists of two parts: the external world and its form, and man's 'mannishness', inclusing his own 'mannishness'. No matter what a man may believe, he cannot change the reality of what is...

...every man is in a place of tension. Man cannot make his own universe and then live in it...

...every man is somewhere along the line between the real world and the logical conclusion of his non-Christian presuppositions. Every person feels the pull of two consistencies, the pull towards the real world and the pull towards the logic of his system. He may let the pendulum swing back and forth between them, but he cannot live in both places at once. He will be living nearer to the one or to the other, depending on the strenght of the pull at any given time. To have to choose bewteen one consistency or the other is a real damnation for man.

In the Face of Evil

Two events have gobbled up the headlines over the last few days: the Virginia Tech shootings and, to a lesser extent, the Supreme Court's upholding of the federal partial-birth abortion (D&X) ban. These two things may seem totally unrelated, but there is a thread connecting them that I'd like to draw out. Part of me wants to apologize for and warn you in advance of the graphic nature of some of this post - but the rest of me realizes that, without the full truth being told, no one can make an accurate judgment, not only on if my point here is correct, but on a life-or-death issue that involves the moral conscience of our society. There is more at stake here. So I make no apology - though as you read this, know that I am not posting this with the purpose to shock you to disgust or offend you; but if you are shocked, disgusted, and offended, you'll be a living example of my point via your own experience.

People are talking this week about evil. The actions of Cho Seung-Hui on Monday at Virginia Tech bought our nation face to face with the potential for evil in the human heart, and even the media has not been silent in using this language to describe the shootings. The New York Sun released an editorial on the massacre titled A Glimpse of Evil, calling Cho a "monster." As Ilana Mercer of WorldNetDaily reported, "Cho's poetry teacher, Nikki Giovanni, uses the word evil to describe him. She refused to put up with his intimidating presence in her classroom and had Cho removed." Dennis Prager has given voice to the thoughts and feelings of many with these words: "...why is it always referred to as a 'tragedy'? Virginia Tech wasn't hit by a cyclone. That would be a tragedy. This was evil. Call it that." And as one Blacksburg pastor (the VT campus chaplain) said, "Evil came to campus." America is having a hard time not reacting to the brutality of this event and this man with these sorts of visceral moral judgments, and this is happening across the board – in other words, there is no real controversy in these statements.

Juxtaposed against this is the much more controversial 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in favor of the partial-birth abortion ban. I believe much of the popular controversy stems from a lack of understanding of what precisely partial-birth abortion is. It doesn’t help that the field of public discourse on this matter is littered with red-herrings – such as issues of “women’s health” or “rarity of procedure” or even the application of the term “abortion” (really a misnomer in this case, as Greg Koukl explains here). I am not saying that we shouldn't take care in dealing with these issues - far from it, actually - but that we must first begin, not at a point of theoretical abstraction, but at the point of our own humanity.

This requires us to expose ourselves to the procedure itself. The following medical description is taken from "Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion", an instruction manual on D&X procedure for physicians by Dr. Martin Haskell that was included in "Second Trimester Abortion: From Every Angle," (materials presented by the National Abortion Federation and distributed at the NAF Fall Risk Management Seminar, held September 13-14, 1992, in Dallas, Texas) pages 30-31.

The surgeon introduces a large grasping forceps, such as a Bierer or Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus.... When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity. The surgeon then applies firm traction to the instrument causing aversion of the fetus (if necessary) and pulls the extremity into the vagina....

With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities.

The skull lodges at the internal cervical [opening]....The fetus is oriented dorsum or spine up. At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and 'hooks' the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down)....

While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.

...The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.

What is called "abortion" here is clearly nothing more nor less than infancticide. Koukl responded to this description in his article Nothing Hidden in D&X in this way:

Nothing is hidden in D&X abortion. This is not a piece of tissue or a mere part of a woman's body. This is a little boy or girl dangling between the legs of its mother. You can clearly see its sexual organs, male or female. It squirms and kicks. Its hands open and close, grasping for something to hang onto, until the moment when the doctor's instrument pierces the back of its skull. Then, of course, everything goes limp, because the baby is dead.

Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse from Dayton Ohio, accepted assignment to Dr. Haskell's clinic because she was "strongly pro-choice." In testimony before the
Senate Judiciary Committee, nurse Shafer described the end of life for one six-month-old "fetus."

"[Dr. Haskell] delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head....The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall....[Then] the baby was completely limp....After I left that day, I never came back." [NRLC brief, "Senate Hearing Explodes Pro-Abortion Misinformation About Partial-Birth Abortions," Nov. 28, 1995, p. 1.]

You see, Brenda Pratt Shafer “saw” something important that day. An abstract belief could no longer sustain her once she came face to face with the brutal reality of the procedure. As she later testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee, she was not able to shake free of the visual image of that small body going from struggling and alive to limp and dead at the hands of a doctor. She saw it every time she closed her eyes for weeks afterward, and even had trouble looking at her own children without experiencing deep emotional turmoil.

It is this visceral perception, this deep awareness of evil that humans can't help but have that is the thread that connects these two events. In the face of evil, true evil, if we are not sufficiently bent and twisted around the core of evil in each of us, we all recoil. We all have an intuitive sense of this. When one has truly experienced something like this - when one has come face-to-face with evil - we can no longer retreat into relativistic platitudes of merely personal violated sensibilities or cultural norms. Nancy Pearcey put it this way:

After World War II, when the atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps came to light, it created a crisis among many educated people. Steeped in the cynicism and relativism typical of their class, they perceived for the first time in a visceral way that evil is real. Yet their own secular philosophies gave them no basis for making objective, universal moral judgments - because those philosophies reduced moral judgments to merely personal preferences or cultural conventions. Thus they found themselves trapped in a practical contradiction, which created tremendous inner tension.

The dilemma is that humans irresistibly and unavoidably make moral judgments - and yet nonbiblical worldviews give no basis for them. When nonbelievers act according to their intrinsic moral nature by pronouncing something truly right or wrong, they are being inconsistent with their own philosophy - and thus condemn it by their own actions. (Total Truth, p. 396)

We as a culture can run from this awareness, but ultimately, when the rubber meets the road in our own lives, we cannot hide.

Arrgh!

I just had my first (and completely infuriating) experience of the internet eating a large blogpost - over an hour's worth of work. It was supposed to go up today. I'll see if I can't reconstruct it in time to still accomplish that.

Grrr. Well, lesson learned, I guess - work off of a Word document or something, rather than the Blogger page.

I'd rather be blogging

Some days, I wish I could make a living by blogging. Until such an opportunity comes up, I guess I'll keep my day job. I mean career.

Prejudice - Wrong, but why? The answer matters.

Even in our deeply - and often simply - relativistic cultural milieu, the notion that it is wrong to be prejudiced (specifically in the sense of an unfair bias toward a perceived minority group) enjoys widespread acceptance. In fact, it is often taken as an unquestioned truism, and few people give much thought to if it is indeed wrong, and if so, why it is wrong. The Christian has a unique answer to offer to both questions, and (leaving aside the implications of calling something "wrong" that should be highlighted for our culture) the difference between those answers and the answers given by most secular non-Christians is quite telling, though often unarticulated.

A couple of days ago, I had occasion to talk about this with the youth group at my church. A parent had noticed displays of prejudice both from some of the youth and from himself, and wanted to talk with the group about it. There was some discussion at the outset about what prejudice is, how we can identify it in our own lives, and how we can avoid it. I didn't let the conversation get very far, however, before asking the question, "Do you know why prejudice is wrong? Specifically, why is it wrong for you as a Christian?"

The first answer I received was not really all that suprising. It is the answer usually given from the secular worldview- in fact, the only logically consistent answer available to today's common combination of moral relativism and the materialistic view that reduces morality to an evolved characteristic of the human species derived from self-interest (a la Dawkins' The Selfish Gene) . "You wouldn't want someone to treat you that way, so you shouldn't treat other people that way. If you're prejudiced towards other people, they'll probably be prejudiced towards you, so that makes it wrong."

This idea does more than merely root morality in empathy (as many have mistakenly done*); it says morals, even the most altruistic, are driven by the evolutionary forces of self-interest and self-preservation. That, because we evolved as social animals, and these rules of social interaction were advantageous to our ancestors in getting their DNA passed on into the next generation, we now have moral notions like "it is wrong to be prejudiced" - and that ultimately, whether something is "right" or "wrong" depends on how it will benefit or harm me, and my moral reasoning should be subject to my own self-interest.** So prejudice is wrong because it will have a negative impact on me - which is really the only consistent answer a materialist can give.

The Christian, though, has a different answer, as I tried to explain to the youth that night, and that answer makes all the difference in the world. For the Christian, basic human dignity and equality is grounded in the imago dei - that we are all created in the image of God and because of that have intrinsic value as individuals. Furthermore, "good" derives its definition from God's character; "evil" is a deviation, a departure from that character. We as humans were originally created to be in line with the character of God, but, as Francis Schaeffer said, man is now abnormal - we have been separated from our Creator by our sin through the Fall. This has had dire ramifications on our relationships with our fellow man. We do not treat each other as we should, as we were originally intended to treat one another. When we participate in evil, then, we are not being true to what we were initially created to be.

This helps to make sense of the two greatest commandments Jesus pointed out: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself (neighbor here meaning fellow man, not just the folks next door). You see, because of the relational love within the Godhead between the Father and the Son from all eternity (Jesus spoke of this in John 17), and in light of our being created in God's image in this way, we should love our neighbor; and acts of prejudice (pre-judging), whether verbal or mental, is a falling away from - a bending and twisting of - our original purpose as people. It is certainly not loving. That is why, as a Christian, I can say that prejudice is wrong.

This is one of those increasingly rare areas where a popular, politically-correct moral notion does in fact correspond to a Christian moral principle. It is incumbent upon us as Christians to not just unthinkingly agree with this sentiment, but to be clear about why we hold prejudice to be wrong, and thus bring glory to God and an avenue of hope for a world in rebellion.

* Quite the opposite, actually - empathy is a result of moral knowledge, not its cause.

** This is dealt with rather well by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason.

I've been blocked!

Apparently Communist China doesn't want any of its citizens reading my blog. I have been officially blocked by their uber-censoring firewall. Maybe because I've used the word 'Christian.' I wonder if I should have used 'Kristian' or some such camouflage. Well, at least I can sleep easy tonight knowing I'm not subverting the populace of the People's Republic of China. And, if nothing else, my little blog feels like a real blog now in some fashion.

If you'd like to see if your site is blocked, check out the Great Firewall of China.

HT: Maverick Philosopher

I'm baaack...

Wow, March is over, and I'm alive! Okay, so I didn't get any posts off in March, but that just means I've got some good stuff that's been stewing for a while coming your way this month...

Link Update

My post on February 14 on Classical Christian Education included a link to The Dawntreader blog which is no longer working (I believe it was a trackback link that has expired or something). So here is the permanent link to the archived post.

Also of interest on the subject of Classical Christian Education, here are a few links I have found helpful:

One of the best descriptions of the Trivium I have read.

The Association of Classical and Christian Schools website.

Classical Conversations, a support organization for Classical homeschooling.

March Madness

March Madness is here, and I ain't talkin' basketball. March is the busiest, most insane month for me with work (a total of ten separate major performance events), and so my posting here may be even more sporadic than normal for the next few weeks. My apologies to my readers - I'll try to get a few posts off at some point this month (though I'm not sure exactly how that's going to happen), but though you can expect to be seeing little new stuff around here in March, you'll definitely be getting more regular posts come April.

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!

Sayers on Education's Failure

One of the writers my wife and I just started reading recently (on the issue of today's largely ineffectual education system and the philosophy on which it is built, versus a classical education) is Dorothy Sayers. Here is an except from The Lost Tools of Learning which I found particularly lucid and insightful:

For we let our young men and women go out unarmed, in a day when armor was never so necessary. By teaching them all to read, we have left them at the mercy of the printed word. By the invention of the film and the radio, we have made certain that no aversion to reading shall secure them from the incessant battery of words, words, words. They do not know what the words mean; they do not know how to ward them off or blunt their edge or fling them back; they are a prey to words in their emotions instead of being the masters of them in their intellects.

Oh no - they're showing up already

That's right - bad blogging habits. This may be a carry-over from my normal writing habits, but it seems like every time I sit down to write a post, as I am composing it, about three new ideas for separate posts (tangentially related in differing degrees to the original) come to mind, and I must quickly open another document to jot it down before the epiphany is lost.

This post case in point.

The problem is that I see this as a good way to generate new posts - even to tie a few separate post thematically together - but it makes it darned difficult to get just one of the stinkin' things finished. I suppose I'm going to find a way to make the productive bit of this system work without impeding production more than it contributes, or I'll just have to dump the whole system. It's hard to change how you're wired, though. We'll see, I suppose. The upshot is that, when I do post, I'll probably have a lot to offer - at least quantity-wise.

When given a chance...

Last night in his State of the Union Address, President Bush made a statement that I found interesting but I doubt will get punted around much by the various analysts, pundits, politicians and talking heads. The comment provides the philosophical animus for most of Bush’s Iraq policy and strategy:

What every terrorist fears most is human freedom -- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they're given a chance.

Is this true? Is it true that, when given the chance, most people will reject “violent and malignant ideologies” and embrace democratic freedom? From whence, then, come totalitarian regimes? From whence come suicide bombers?

"What in the World is a Worldview?"

Not only does everybody have one, but I think understanding them is key to a careful analysis and response to the cultural forces and beliefs around us. In light of this, and because much of what I will be writing on this blog will center around the concept of "worldview", I thought it fitting to address the subject directly in my first post. As with the title of this post, much of what follows is taken from Ken Samples' article of the same name in the latest issue (First Quarter/2007) of Reasons to Believe's publication, Connections (here, though this issue not available online as of this posting).

"Worldview" is derived from the German term Weltanshauung, and refers to the cluster of interconnected beliefs (not just isolated ideas, but a unified, basic conceptual system) an individual holds about life's most significant concepts. It seeks to answer questions such as:

• Does God exist? If he does, what kind of God is he?
• What can be known, and how can anyone know it?
• Where did I come from?
• How should I live?
• What is wrong with humanity, and how is the problem solved?

In its simplest form, a worldview could be defined as how one sees life and the world. Samples says:

In this manner it can be compared to a pair of glasses. How a person makes sense of the world depends upon that person's "vision," so to speak. The interpretive "lens" helps people make sense of life and comprehend the world around them. Sometimes the lens brings clarity, other times it can distort reality (emphasis added).

So one way of putting it is that one's beliefs on the "Big Questions" form a big picture, a general outlook and perspective on life and the world. Another, more complex definition, again given by Samples, would be:

...a mental structure that organizes one's basic beliefs. This framework supplies a comprehensive view of what a person considers real, true, rational, good, valuable, and beautiful. In this vein, philosopher Ronald Nash defines a worldview as "a conceptual scheme by which we consciously or unconsciously place or fit everything we believe and by which we interpret and judge reality."

Critical to a worldview is its unified nature - a carefully examined and reflective worldview is not a collection of disconnected and unrelated beliefs, but an interconnected framework and conceptual structure that informs all of our decisions. This is why some have compared a worldview to a road map for life - our values inform our decisions and actions, and our worldviews guide the development of those values. Answering the fundamental questions of a worldview is necessary for making decisions and navigating through life, and every person's worldview in essence works like a chart or plan to supply direction.

So not only are worldviews necessary and important to any functioning human being, but their ramifications are far-reaching. Much of this blog will be devoted to testing the various worldviews held by the people with whom I come in contact. As for me, I seek to hold a carefully examined worldview in which all of my disparate beliefs fit into an overall framework.

Worldview Thinking (or its functional equivalent) in the Book of Acts, Pt.1

So is the concept of a worldview even a Biblical one? Did the apostles think in these kind of terms? Or is Weltanschauung merely the latest philosophical fad, irrelevant to the thinking of the biblical writers? If, however, it does have some signifigance here, how should it inform our understanding and application of Scripture? The first place we will go in search of answers to these questions is the Book of Acts, Chapter 17.

Here we find Paul's famous address to the Athenians on Mars Hill. While perhaps the specific term worldview may not have entered Paul's thoughts, the functional equivalent of the concept was certainly in play. The Athenians Paul was talking to had certain foundational concepts about what the world was, where it came from, the nature of humanity and the divine, etc., that Paul had to challenge first from a distinctly Jewish (and hence Christian) way of seeing these things before he could talk about Christ and even be coherent. What you see in this passage of Acts is Paul deftly building conceptual bridges with his Hellenistic audience (which doesn't necessarily work across the board, as evidenced by many of the Athenians' reactions to his rustic and “intellectually inferior” ideas).

Besides drawing attention to the fact that Paul apparently understood the ramifications of such foundational concepts of God, origins, Man's fundamental problem, etc. (all of which can be properly identified as worldview questions), I'd also like to make the point that he didn't overlay his worldview prematurely on that of the Athenians - he understood that he had to go back to the beginning, as it were, with his non-Jewish audience, and not assume they would understand a statement such as "repent, believe in Jesus Christ, and be saved" without the proper groundwork laid. In fact, it is much the same point Nancy Pearcey makes in Total Truth – that any presentation of the gospel today must first START with Creation (nature of God and Man) rather than falsely assuming an understanding of these things by your audience BEFORE getting to the Fall (we are sinners culpable before a moral God) and Redemption (Jesus died to save you from your sins). Though possible in times past, we can certainly no longer assume that those with whom we share the gospel believe there is a God who created the world. We must take into account the worldview we face, and always build from the bottom up.