The Pendulum Effect

The Giant Heart at the Center of the Universe

2011-10-30T09:50:00.000-04:00

Reason, isn't so much a truth detector, but a potential falsehood detector. I say *potential*, because a falsehood may be reasonable under certain presuppositions.

You might ask, why can't we measure those presuppositions with reason? Many times you can, but there is a depth beyond reason's reach. This depth, reaches into the metaphysical. A paradigm is very difficult to evaluate if it is built upon metaphysical presuppositions. Sure, you can use reason to determine whether the paradigm is consistent, but you can't validate metaphysical presuppositions with certainty.

Let me give an example. It is probably too simplistic but generally, you can say that there are at least two assumptions that one can build a worldview upon. One says that man's most natural inclination is to do good, while the other says his natural inclination is to do evil.

A worldview built upon the former says that crime and socially malevolent behavior are caused by environmental and sociological factors. This worldview therefore emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment.

A worldview built upon the latter says that crime and socially malevolent behavior are natural to man. He therefore needs a deterrent and incentive system (the popular focus incorrectly tends to be more on deterring then incenting in my view) to 'do the right thing'.

How does one test which view on man's nature is correct? Although I do believe that induction and deduction can be used to give credibility to one over the other (as a Christian, I believe in man's sin nature), ultimately these two assumptions are metaphysical in nature because they can not ultimately be proven via a 'smoking gun' litmus test.

Unfortunately, we can't avoid building paradigms upon metaphysical presuppositions. And by metaphysical, I don't simply mean "religious", I am referring to any belief that is beyond empiricism's reach.

So how do we choose a paradigm when our only choices are metaphysical? Metaphysical choices require nothing less than faith.

Faith is volitional. In other words, we believe what we want to believe.

So why are left in such a predicament? Why are the answers to life's ultimate and most important questions left to the subjectivity of our volition instead of the meticulous scrutiny of empiricism? It seems that there is something in life that
is testing our hearts more than our minds. And since things can't ask questions, that "thing" is a being...

At the center of the universe is a giant heart...

Talk Nerdy To Me

2011-08-19T06:29:00.001-04:00

Question: What is the largest number?
Answer: There is no such thing.
Question: How do you know?
Answer: Because no matter what number you can imagine, I can think of a number that is larger
Question: How do you KNOW this? Have you thought of every number?
Answer: Impossible

Do two infinite lines on a plane ever intersect? The answer is no, but I ask, "How do you know without examining every point on such lines?"

There is truth that can only be reached via the mind; truth that is inaccessible to empiricism. We could call this an "empiricism trap".

"Logic traps" also exist. Before the hare can pass the turtle, it must go half-way.
After all, you can't go 100% of the distance until you go half of the distance. So
let's say that the hare needed to travel 1 mile to get to the finish line. Before
traveling 1 mile, it has to go .5 miles. Before arriving at .5 miles, it has to
travel .25 miles. Before arriving at .25 miles, it has to travel .125 miles, Before
.125, it has to go .0625 miles. Before .0625 miles, .03125, etc.... At that rate, it
will never reach 1 mile.

There must be truths outside of the limitations of empiricism. Truths that only reason can touch. And, there must be truths outside of the limitations of reason
which only empiricism can touch.

"The infinite, even if it exists in reality, can only be represented through our
imagination." Marcelo Gleiser -
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/08/10/129104565/to-infinity-and-beyond#more

This is why I say that atheism is the failure of the imagination in bridging the gaps between empiricism and reality.

And notice that this whole posting uses reason. Reason necessitates its limitations. How surprising it might be to many that reason therefore births faith.

A Quest For Divine Authority

2011-07-31T06:16:00.004-04:00

In George Barna's latest book, "Future Cast", he says that Americans share these views about the Bible:

84% of Americans consider it Sacred.
Less than 45% strongly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all it teaches.
26% believe in a literal interpretation.
60% believe that the Bible is accurate and without error.
18% believe the Bible is Inspired, but that it contains some factual and historical errors.

So what IS the Bible? Is it the very Word of God? Is it merely a book written by men? Is it even historical? Is it somehow a guide for our lives?

I always challenge people who reject the Bible's spiritual authority to give an alternative explanation of its existence. I make this challenge because I find that most skeptics have never even thought about the question.

But much of what skeptics say about religion in general can be tested against the Bible. I've heard them say that religion exists for the following reasons:

Wishful thinking
Crutch for the weak-minded
Social manipulation

Wishful Thinking

This idea is that people believe because they want to believe. Freud espoused this idea that we all had a psychological need for a father figure so we dreamed up the greatest father of all in God.

A great theme of this blog is formed in the simple question of "Why?". Why would we have such a need? Freud would appeal to evolutionary survival reasons. In a cruel world that sometimes forces us to our knees in order to survive, we want our "Daddy" to come and save us. It is comforting to think that there might be a Divine father who cares for our best interests and looks out for us.

Although I'm skeptical of evolution (I DO believe in natural selection. You can read about my beliefs on origins in this previous post), one does not have to be an evolutionist to believe in survival. I don't argue against wishful thinking projecting a belief in God. However, there is another way of looking at this truth that flips it on its head.

St. Augustine wrote about a God-shaped hole in our hearts. That hole is so large it can only be filled by God. He suggested that this hole was a longing in our hearts. It is one that can be connected to survival but transcends it. I see it in myself simply in longing to know and love someone greater than myself. I see it when I am enraptured in a love expressed via worship for Him.

What is more is that I have experienced that love as a recipient. Sure, you can try to argue this away as psychological projection.... perhaps it is but even so, it doesn't change what I have experienced and it certainly makes my life better.

In a world where there is no God, I'm not sure truth matters any more. If there is no God, than the chief goal of man is to have a good time, a good experience. After all, in such a world, man would be the highest being, seeking no one higher to serve. So if it feels good, do it. And if a belief yields a good experience, it would no longer matter whether or not it was true or a delusion.

I am NOT suggesting that I believe that I am living in such a delusion and asking skeptics to leave me alone. If there IS a God, this experience is based upon reality and reality is a slave master exacting its own demands...

So does the psychological need to believe prove that theism is a delusion or is the need to believe actually God-given? It is funny how life presents us truths that can always be looked at in two ways by reasonable, educated and wise people on both sides...

Augustine would suggest that this God-shaped hole has been placed in our hearts as a compass... a way that points to God. Make a note of this the next time life leaves you feeling like there has to be more.... Think about this when that last drink, sexual experience, accomplishment, or big ticket item purchase just isn't enough... And suffering is this truth's megaphone...

Crutch for the weak-minded

The crutch argument is wishful thinking extended to suffering and worry. We seek security even in the good times and a refuge in life's storms. What better rock can we look to than a divine one?

Like the wishful thinking argument, I would not deny the logic of this position... I would only question being dogmatic about its reality. Once again we see life presenting us with truth that can be interpreted in two ways. Does the need for a Divine refuge exist because we are self-deceived or is it a way for God to speak to us in the midst of our anxiety and suffering to say, "HERE I am"?

Does the need disqualify theism, or does God give us the need in the first place? I am convinced that such questions can never be answered within the circle of reason. Reason isn't a truth detector. It CAN be a lie detector but only if the lie is inconsistent with its presuppositions.

Reason simply tests the consistency and coherence of a belief. This idea is expressed in science in the form of objective positivism as demonstrated by the physicist Neils Bohr:

There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature... - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr

In other words, it is one thing to test whether or not something is logically consistent but it is quite another to say whether or not a logically consistent argument is true.

This does not invalidate reason, it just shows us that reason is not enough. So what lies beyond reason to touch truth?

I have come to learn that profundity can be described as when a complex question surprises us with a simple answer. Love is the answer.

Love rends us objective. It removes the internal biases that taint our interpretations of life, leaving us selfless enough to see the truth even when it makes us uncomfortable. I would suggest that the crutch argument applies to both sides and that truth armed with love only threatens the skeptic's crutch... After all, doesn't the skeptic need the crutch of disbelief in order to sustain a life submissive to no one higher than the worship of self?

I am still trying to unravel all that this means and can write no more about this discovery except to challenge my reader to seek the truth in love...

Social manipulation

This argument says that religion was invented as a means for the tribe, monarchies and governments to manipulate the social behavior of the masses. Since the "arm of the law" is limited by police and military power, a divine power was conjured up who never sleeps, never tires and sees all even that which is done in secret.

I won't deny that many religions might exist because of this need. However, anyone who has read the new testament, will have a hard time reconciling this explanation to its content.

We repeatedly see in the New Testament this idea that man should obey God even over the law when there is a conflict.

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!” 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. - Acts 5:27-29

Why would anyone wanting to conjure up Christianity for social manipulation purposes, write such a text?

Logic has found a lie...

Concluding Thoughts

In conclusion, I'll say that in regards to the Bible, I'm not going to go any farther... I have some deeper beliefs that I have learned to only share with people who are ready. I know when a person is at such a level by their level of questioning. In other words, I have a "if you don't ask, then I don't tell" policy regarding some of my deepest beliefs.

I see Jesus purposefully withholding truths from those who weren't ready. He seemed to determine this by the level of hunger as indicated by the presence or absence of questions from the potential seeker.

Besides, God doesn't reveal all. Instead, He puts Himself just out of reach as to give us a challenge, something to seek. Seek Him with all of your heart and the truth will come.

The Delusion of Jargon

2011-05-29T08:51:00.008-04:00

As scientific knowledge has increased, so has its verbosity. As its lexicon of explanations grows, our belief in God tends to shrink:

Since the latter part of the 18th century, deism used science to justify its stance. Scientists, like Sir Isaac Newton, were able to elaborate more and more to explain how the universe and everything around us worked. Many of the mysteries that man attributed to God, yielded simple mechanistic explanations. The increase in knowledge spurred the decline in religious faith among the intellectual elite. As a philosopher and mathematician, Descartes reduced God to a “mathematical abstraction.” Reason pushed faith off into the realm of mythology and superstition, while deism quickly deteriorated into atheism (belief in no God at all). Science seemed to engage in a centuries-old battle with religion for the mind of man. Life became a product of blind change -- a cosmic game of chance played throughout time. - http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/deism.htm

Imagine that you had never ever seen a computer before. One day, you discover one that is still operational. As you examine it, the one question that would dominate your thinking would be regarding its origin. You might start off thinking that some sentient being (a programmer) created it. Over time, you perform experiments on the computer and make discoveries. One discovery you make is that there is an underlying set of rules (software) giving the computer its logical features. Let's say one day, you even discover the binary logic and mathematical algorithms that underlie the ability of this computer.

Would this mean that you could come to the conclusion that there must not be a programmer? Would this mean that you could come to the conclusion that the computer must be the product of a chance set of random processes if given enough time?

So why do we treat the universe this way in light of modern scientific discoveries?

To use another illustration, knowing what is under the hood of an automobile, doesn't make the existence of automobile designers/engineers less believable....

GK Chesterton, in his book Orthodoxy, suggests in the "Maniac" chapter that in fairy tales, we don't think of laws, we think in terms of magic. We accept, as a premise of the story, that if Cinderella doesn't return before midnight, her carriage will turn into a pumpkin.

Yet in life, we seem to think it is some sort of law that the egg will turn into the chicken. But logically speaking, the egg is about as far apart as the carriage is to the pumpkin.

Science has replaced our narrative with propositions and our faith with technology.

I very much believe in science. I'm just not quick to accept the reductionist worldview we most quickly gravitate towards as a result of its influence.

Could it be that we really live in such a fairy land, obscured by illusions of scientific jargon? Yes, faith can fool us, propelling us into an illusory world that doesn't really exist. But could it be that science can do the same? The only distinction between the two is that if science fools us, it takes away wonder.

So, yes I think it is healthy to guard faith against wishful thinking. But it is equally healthy to guard against science's reductionist proclivity.

Words demystify. But SHOULD they? Should they steal our wonder, aging us out of childhood into crotchety old people?

Wise men hear and see as little children do. - Lao Tzu

Wisdom begins in wonder. - Socrates

If you disagree with the points suggested in this article, ask yourself this question: Do you do so because of a gap in logic or a gap in imagination?

How old is your thinking?

Heavy Exercises in Imagination on Bishop Spong

2011-05-26T10:51:00.003-04:00

I'm in the midst of reading a book by Bishop John Shelby Spong entitled, "Why Christianity Must Change or Die".

While I don't agree with a lot of the Bishop's conclusions, I appreciate his ability to make me think.

I am only a chapter into the book, but he has already inspired a line of thinking that I felt worthy of blogging about.

In summary, I see Bishop Spong as oversimplifying counter-arguments and lacking the force of imagination in seeking answers.

An example is his argument that Christ couldn't have really ascended in light of modern scientific understandings of the universe post Copernicus. He claims that the word "up" is rendered meaningless since the Chinese on the other side of the earth, when pointing to the sky, are pointing in the opposite direction of an American doing the same.

I see this as simply the word "up" being redefined as moving away from a dominant source of gravity (i.e. the earth). It only takes a little imagination to understand that "up" is now defined as pointing away from the earth and to not "throw out the baby with the bath water."

Mr. Spong thinks that because of modern discoveries in space observation and exploration, the idea of Christ ascending to the heavens is preposterous. He says, that if Christ would have ascended as the Bible describes it, we now know that He would have simply went into orbit.

But I see this as failing to imagine many possibilities on the edges or even outside the boundaries of modern scientific understanding. Christ could have flown beyond the speed of light to a physical place beyond the edge of what we know now as a finite and expanding universe. While Einstein gave us a physics that says that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, his EPR experiments suggest that there is something that might be able to go beyond the speed of light.

And what about the possibility of wormholes in space? Perhaps Christ ascended into one?

Furthermore, modern scientific understanding has not discovered what boundary space is expanding into. Perhaps it is expanding into what we think of as "heaven".

Another possibility is that heaven isn't a material place in the sense that it is not detectable or observable by those of us in our present realm. Scientific thought even postulates such a possibility with the idea of a multiverse.

All of the above requires the exercise of imagination. Imagination, when applied to God, can only be untamed if that God is unbound. Einstein once said:

Imagination is more important than intelligence.

And this is the heart of Mr. Spong's problem. His imagination is limited by his view that perhaps God is NOT omnipotent. He questions God's omnipotence because of the existence of suffering and death.

I believe the reason we struggle with God's infinity is because we fail to see God's self-imposed limitations.

Imagine that you were omnipotent. Your first reaction might be that it would be like winning the lottery. You might say, "if I were omnipotent, I'd give myself a mansion, tons of nice cars, money, I'd never have to work again, and the list goes on and on and on...."

But if you were omnipotent, why would you NEED money or a mansion or a mode of transportation? You see, these initial "answers" are really questions in disguise. If you were omnipotent, you wouldn't need a place to rest because you wouldn't need to rest. You would also not need shelter from the elements, therefore you'd have no need for a house. You wouldn't need money, food or anything else.

So if you needed nothing, what would you do with your life? You certainly wouldn't do anything you HAD to do. You'd only do what you WANTED to do. And going further, you'd not only DO nothing outside of your will, you'd BE nothing outside of your will.

So the omnipotence of God can only be understood if we focus on His will. Everything else is fuzzy to finite minds which can only understand things with boundaries.

BTW, have you ever thought of the fact that we can only understand things with boundaries? Have you ever tried to imagine infinity and eternity?

So if this omnipotent God wants us to know Him, He will limit what He chooses to do and be. Pantheism believes in an omnipotent God. However pantheism believes in an unlimited God that is unknowable because that God EXERCISES that omnipotence.

But I believe that God has limited Himself. His ABILITY is unlimited (what we mean by calling him omnipotent). But he doesn't exercise it. This idea separates the Christian view from pantheism.

God has limited Himself not only so that we can know him, but also as an example. A good leader leads by example. He calls us to limit ourselves by first limiting Himself.

Mr. Spong questions the omnipotence of God because bad things happen to good people. In fact, I've already found more than a few places where the Bishop seems to reject ideas simply based upon their appeal to him.

But only God can decide truth on the basis of their appeal to Him. I don't have to like the existence of death and suffering to believe in them. To reject their existence because of my preferences, is to act as if I am omnipotent. This is self-idolatry.

This would be akin to me rejecting a doctor's prognosis (and perhaps treatment) of an illness because I didn't like it.

So why would God allow suffering and death? I don't have all the answers, but I do believe His chief goal is for us to enter into a loving communion with Him. Love requires volition. This choice comes with consequences. Love without volition is called "rape" and is no real love at all.

There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way” - C.S. Lewis

This is a heavy posting that probably leaves more questions than answers. But since HOW we think is more important than WHAT we think, I hope I have inspired you to open up your imaginations when pursuing the truth.

As Socrates once said,

Wisdom begins in wonder.

16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 17 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter.
- Luke 18:16-17

And at the same time, "anchor" your imagination with wisdom and humility.

Knowledge is knowing it's a one way street. Wisdom is looking both ways anyways.
- anonymous.

Humility is having the boldness to stare weakness in the eye without flinching.

Bad To Be Good

2011-04-13T16:56:00.003-04:00

A local Pastor recently got charged with domestic violence. Here is what he told the Court:

“I’m the pastor of a church for almost 30 years teaching people to be good...”

And THERE is the problem. Being a Christian isn’t about being good. People can be good without believing in God. They can’t do so logically, but lack of coherence isn’t a show stopper.

Many people go to college to get a job instead of to learn. But the best students really want to learn. They have the curiosity that inspires them to study. As a result, they get good grades and tend to get the best jobs as a side effect.

Many people go into politics for money, power and prestige, but the best politicians aren’t really politicians at all. They are leaders, change agents who wanted to make a difference.

Many, many rich people (arguably most) didn’t set out to be rich. Instead, they pursued their interests, leveraging their skills, to produce a better product or service. The wealth came because they were really good at what they chose and they were in the right place at the right time.

The Government is trying to alleviate poverty with Welfare, however they are actually unintentionally supporting and expanding it. For a Government to be effective in fighting poverty, it has to get out of the way and do everything it can to empower individuals, churches and other organizations to battle it (see "Jesus Was Not A Welfarist", http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/No-Jesus-Was-Not-a-Welfarist-J-E-Dyer-04-11-2011.html)

Sailboats are adequate for transportation, but most people don’t sail merely to get from point A to B. The destination is usually just an excuse for the journey.

When I realize that I can’t be good, I begin to seek God’s grace. In finding that grace, my love for Him grows. Out of that love, goodness flows.

"The only people who get better are people who know that, if they never get better, God will love them anyway."
— Steve Brown (A Scandalous Freedom: The Radical Nature of the Gospel)

And for more great Steve Brown Quotes:

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/52931.Steve_Brown

An Imaginative Faith For An Imaginative Reality

2011-04-12T20:42:00.001-04:00

Could you remind me how the Trinity works? And could you explain to me again this idea of grace?" One diligent student had no problem grasping Islam. She had no problem understanding religions based on a concept of exchange—do something for a god and he'll do something for you. But she was legitimately confused about Christianity: "The Quran is simple. Why is Christianity complicated?" http://www.worldmag.com/articles/17907

Christianity is complicated because reality is complicated. Show me a simple religion, and I’ll show you one that is not real.

"Reality, in fact, is always something you couldn't have guessed. That's one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It's a religion you couldn't have guessed."
--The Case for Christianity

Christianity tells us what man-made religions like Islam or Hinduism do not: That at a specific historical moment God experienced intimately torture, abandonment, overwhelming loss, and unjust death. http://www.worldmag.com/articles/17907

Factoid: Jesus is asked 183 questions in the Gospels. He answers just three of them—and he asks 307 questions back. http://www.worldmag.com/articles/17907

Truth Is Stranger Than Science Fiction

2011-04-12T06:14:00.016-04:00

It seems egotistical to believe that we are alone in the entire universe, considering how large it is.

That is one very common opinion that I heard recently while talking to a few friends. I appreciate and agree but can also imagine another perspective:

What if we ARE alone because LIFE is special? What if we are alone because life is precious and to be THAT treasured?

The answer to the question of alien life hasn't been conclusively determined, however we already know that it takes very special conditions for a planet to be able to accommodate life.

Astronomers are just now finding some planets that might be habitable. Scientists have found over 400 exoplanets and can count 54 of them as possibly being in the habitable zone (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/news/kepler_data_release.html).

Given this sample (admittedly too small to be considered representative), 13% of these planets MIGHT be able to support life. And this is just based upon the distance these planets are from their star and the average temperature needed for these planets to have water to support life as we know it.

This "rare earth" consciousness seems to be a driving force behind the conservationist movement today. The harder it is to find another earth-like planet, the more we appreciate things we take for granted like clean air, clean water and fossil fuels. We are more conscientious of being good stewards of our Earth's natural resources, as we look at life on earth as being the exception within the known universe.

Truth has a habit of defying our imagination.

While it is harder to imagine that we might be alone, this is kind of what I would expect. When men first discovered that the sun rotated around the earth, that the earth was round and that there is this force called gravity, all of these discoveries stretched our imaginations. Einstein's theory of relativity, as it concluded that even time is relative defied our imaginations as we thought about the possibility of flying in space at the speed of light and time slowing down to allow us to virtually travel into the future. Belief in God defies imagination.

Atheism is the failure of the imagination in bridging the gaps between empiricism and reality.

Which statement is easier to prove?

Reason stretches imagination's boundaries.

Imagination stretches reason's boundaries.

From a "God perspective", on one hand it seems very wasteful for Him to have created the entire cosmos and yet only created one little blue dot as the only host for life.

But on the other hand, if He wanted to inspire in us a profound sense of gratitude and thankfulness, what better way could He have done so than by making the Earth the only host of life, in a celestial sea of stars and rocks?

And if the heavens declare His glory, then from a Christian perspective I might ask, "Is the universe large enough?"

"Hearing the World Through the Sounds of Music" speech to Mensa

2011-04-05T20:11:00.004-04:00

I had the privilege of speaking to a Mensa regional gathering on April 2.

Here is an edited audio of my speech entitled, "Hearing the World Through the Sounds of Music".

The speech was focused on deriving a philosophical and spiritual worldview from principles seen in music. I interspersed some improvisational guitar into the lecture for demonstration purposes and to hold attention spans.

Deeper Questions from 13.7 Blog

2011-03-30T22:07:00.003-04:00

I'm always blogging about the deeper questions... here is someone else blogging about the same subject:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/03/29/134921305/what-if-we-could-ask-the-big-questions

Reconciling Faith With Reason

2011-03-24T23:20:00.000-04:00

In his book, “Holy Ignorance”, Olivier Roy laments how religion has been privatized, weaned from the public life. The secular worldview, when divorced from faith, leaves us disenchanted, as it treats us like orphans of God, left in a morass of consumerism, every person reduced down to dollars.

Science has replaced our narrative with propositions and our faith with technology.

He describes how religion has become fanatical as it has come to divorce itself from culture. Such a religion, once unhinged from the world, becomes an antagonist to all that is alien to its self-conjured reality. Mr. Roy explains the modern trends within the church as it markets itself in creating church services that are more like productions, and with its emphasis on a “therapeutic” message, as being the symptoms of this cleavage.

We now live in the digital age. The computer screen or smart phone which you are using to view this blog, was produced by digital technology. Such technology was birthed from science. Science is governed by reason. It is from such reason that Einstein discovered E=MC2, giving us the power and threat we now face with Japan’s nuclear reactor meltdowns. Reason has authenticated itself through the power of the technology that envelopes us.

It is out of this same reasoning process that we are left with interpreting the universe as being approximately 13.7 billion years old, governed by a system of processes that produced the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that shook and swallowed so much of Japan. It is because of this reasoning process that we are able to predict lunar eclipses and the most recent super moon.

I see two ways to reconcile reason with faith. One is to separate scientific thought from its metaphysical assumptions, weeding out fact from fiction by discerning between its pragmatism and its philosophical assumptions. Here is an example that I have used before (and will probably use again):

Two men look at the Grand Canyon. One says, “Wow, look what a lot of time and a little water can do to create such a wonder”. The other says, “Wow, look what a lot of water and a little time can do to create such a wonder”.

Both observers have the same facts but different presuppositions. The presuppositions can sometimes be tested, but many times can not. When they can’t, they fall into the metaphysical category. The facts are certain, but the assumptions require faith to accept or reject.

Let me stress that all these models of the development of the universe from nothing ... from some point [like the primordial atom of the Big Bang models]... have to be seen for what they are: models, devoid of compelling experimental verification. The scenarios we develop from them are possible, and they illustrate various features we can follow up on, but none is ultimately persuasive. —Nothingness: The Science of Empty Space p296

The second way that I see to reconcile faith with reason is to hold some of my faith assumptions with less dogma. I see Christ constantly confronting literal interpretations, not allegorical ones. For instance, in John 6, Christ tells His followers that unless they eat of His flesh and drink of His blood, they cannot become His disciples. Many of His disciples deliberately turn away from Him. Why wasn’t Christ more careful about His wording? Was He not purposefully trying to provoke by separating out the literalists from those who could see the allegorical nature of His words?

I could point to other examples like when Christ stood in front of the temple and told His audience that in three days He would build up the temple (talking about His body, and not the literal temple in which He was standing in front of). Or how about when Christ was ministering to the woman at the well in John 4 and told His disciples who were concerned that He had not eaten in a while, that He had food to eat that they knew nothing about (John 4:32), talking not about physical food but about doing His Father’s will? Such allegorical interpretations free the Christian to believe that the world could be billions of years old.

I’m not sure how far to take this allegorical approach. For instance, I certainly do believe that Christ was and is a literal person. And on the subject of the age of the earth and humanity, I suspect that Dr. Russell Humphreys is on the right track by suggesting that if time is relative, we could be living on a young earth in an old universe….

The point is that I believe in a logical faith. Reason necessitates its own limitations. Faith compensates for them. Reason finds that there are limitations to what we can know. It is the reason people ask, “if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it still make a sound?” As soon as we allow for even the possibility of things existing beyond our empirical knowledge, we open the door to faith.

If reason necessitates faith, faith rejects certainty. Show me someone who is certain, and I’ll show you someone that is faithless. Christ would often ask people, “where is your faith?” But if He really wanted to drive people toward the extreme of belief, why did He not ask, “where is your certainty?”

I am certain that I do not know what I think I know. I have faith that at least some of what I am certain about is wrong. Perhaps if scientists were less dogmatic about their reason, and religious people were less dogmatic about their faith, the reconciliation could be clear.

Here is the book review that inspired this blog posting:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704261504576205113361365714.html

The Questions Lie in Wait

2011-03-16T05:02:00.008-04:00

Reason (like death) robs a man of the delusion of His divinity. Throw out reason and man is free to create reality in his own image. Perception is the only reality the non-discerning may know.

We seem to live in a non-discerning world. It seems that hypersensitivity to being judgmental, bigoted, racist, homophobic, and xenophobic, calls us to throw out our minds in the name of a mindless religious faith known as “political correctness”.

Technology is an affront to this disposition. Science births technology by drawing a line delineating truth from falsehood. Many people explain this as a dichotomy. They see the world as being divided. After all, some truth is quantitative and others are qualitative.

Two plus two equals four. There is no room for argument. But we have no such formulas for determining a suspected universal, transcendent morality. Many people don’t even believe such a thing exists, however they will moralize against those of us who do.

In his book, “God Is Not Great”, Christopher Hitchens moralizes against the church, claiming that organized religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, racist, etc… But what is wrong with those things if God doesn’t exist? WHY are these things wrong in an atheist’s world? Says who?

What if reason is transcendent? What if life’s mysteries are only the limitations of our empirical reach or our presuppositions? What if the mysteries of the world are not an excuse for us to throw our brains out the window, but rather a call to explore?

Imagine if Albert Einstein would have never asked himself why the speed of light was observed to violate Newton’s physics. He would have never discovered E=MC2. Imagine if Kepler would have never asked questions about the anomalies in the Ptolemaic cosmological model. He would never have discovered that the orbits of the celestial bodies are elliptical instead of perfect circles.

I am a music teacher. When I teach creativity to students, I teach them that the key is to ask questions. I challenge them to question a scale and ask, “What can I possibly do with those seven notes?” I then challenge them to explore the possibilities. This curiosity and sense of exploration inevitably leads to creativity.

Creativity breathes life into what is otherwise simply meaningless exercises. When I teach scales, intervals, arpeggios, chords and music theory, my students' eyes glaze over. But when I coax them to be creative with these objects by questioning their possibilities, these things come to life in the dynamic we call music.

Christianity says that the Word became flesh and came to live among us. All the rules and ritual, the sometimes mindless traditionalism, the cleansings, religious ceremonies, sacrifices and duties, came alive in the form of Jesus Christ. Faith, with all of its ambiguity and mystery, breathes life into a dead Word.

Rock beats scissors...

What discoveries in life lie in wait because of questions you are not asking?

Resurrecting Hope

2011-03-14T16:53:00.000-04:00

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/14/japan-digs-thousands-dead-amid-nuclear-crisis/

Why does God allow bad things to happen? That’s the question on many of our minds when we see tragedies like this.

You and I are not immune to such tragedies:

"I never imagined we would be in such a situation" Watanabe said. "I had a good life before. Now we have nothing. No gas, no electricity, no water."

The best answer my faith provides is that we broke the world but God identified with our pain when Christ suffered. If this stopped at His suffering, I’d have no hope, but it is in His resurrection where the real power is.

During this lent and Easter season, I encourage you to think about the message in the story of Christ and in the stories developing in the world around us today.

Learning to Live

2011-03-13T08:00:00.001-04:00

I received a mailer yesterday from a local church announcing evangelistic meetings. I'm sure they mean well... Their mailer went something like this:

You are a sinner- Romans 3:23 says "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God."

Sin leads to death - Romans 6:23 says "The wages of sin is death..."

You need a savior - The rest of Romans 6:23 "But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Christ died for you - Romans 5:28 says "God demonstrates His own love for us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us!"

Believe upon Jesus and you too can be saved - Romans 10:17 says "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved!"

The above is called the Romans road and is a common evangelism technique. Often this approach will go on to give a formulaic prayer that the person can say in order to get saved.

I'm a Christ follower. I believe in salvation. But I have some serious problems with the above message. So it makes sense that I might quote from an atheist right? :-)

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."- Christopher Hitchens.

And of course Carl Sagan...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I would love to reply to such an approach as so:

"Whoever goes aright, for his own soul he goes aright; and whoever goes astray, to his own detriment he goes astray. And no bearer of a burden bears another's burden..." (Koran 53:38)

"Mohammad... is the messenger of God and the Khatam [seal, closure, end, or last] of the prophets..." (Koran 33:40)

"The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was no more than Allah's apostle and His Word which He cast to Mary; a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His apostles and do not say: 'Three.' ...Allah is but one God...." (Koran 4:171)

...Allah forbid that He should have a son." (Koran 4:171)

Those who "believe not in Allah and His Messenger, He has prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!" (Koran 48:13)

Etc...

*See http://www.dianedew.com/islam.htm for more information.

I am not a Muslim. But I would hope such a reply would garner this response from the well-intended Christian. "But the Koran is just a book and it is not the Word of God." I would hope that this well meaning Christian would see the folly of simply throwing out quotes from a religious text and expecting the reader/listener to accept their authority without reason.

I am a Christian. My faith starts with Christ and the evidence for who He is in the historical records of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You can say those books aren't inspired by God, but even if you do, you can't say they are the products of some human conspiracy, forgeries or collective delusion, given the historical evidence. What are you left to say about these books and their claims? How else would you explain four independent witnesses of Christ's life and ministry?

I also believe in Christ because I have found that when I obey His teachings, it benefits the Spiritual health of my life. I believe it is actually easier for man to measure health than to discern truth.

"...it is not enough that the unhappy man should desire truth; he must desire health." - G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, pg 11

And yes, I DO believe in the discernment of truth... But it is easier for me to say that following Christ will bring one blessing than it is for me to say that following Christ is true even though I believe in both and can make a case for both...

Notice how this proselytizing church focuses on "fire insurance". One quote I saw from them made this extraordinary claim:

You can know the truth about eternity!

What an extraordinary claim. Does it not make sense that when Christ taught that probably His first words in His first sermon were probably the most important ones?

Christ's "inaugural speech" is found in Luke 4:18-19:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
   because he has anointed me
   to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
   and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
   19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

I don't see anything explicitly about eternity in His statement. Christ is quoting from Isaiah 61. He establishes His authority, then uses that authority to proclaim the good news. The content of that good news is to set people free and to proclaim the "year of the Lord's favor."

The sermon on the mount is generally believed to be Christ's first public sermon. If you read Matthew 5-6, Christ's emphasis, is on blessing (spiritual health). Here is just an excerpt:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
   for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
   for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
   for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
   for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
   for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
   for they will see God. "

Notice that Christ doesn't focus on behavior but rather attitude and mindset. He also doesn't focus on escape from hell and having eternal assurance of a heavenly afterlife. I believe in heaven and hell but it is very interesting how Christ doesn't simply reduce the good news down to the afterlife. Notice the FOCUS of His message.

Instead Christ capitalizes on our innate, often unspoken assumptions of "What is in this for me?" He leverages this human predisposition by presenting the good news in a transactional framework.

There are extremes found in reductionism. Christ's message should not be reduced down to simply "You can be blessed if you become a Christian" (the prosperity Gospel). But it should also not be reduced to "You can have a security blanket that helps you deal with death".

I appreciate the evangelistic church that I described because they have a heart for souls. I lament the fact that they have reduced the good news down to something that teaches us how to die but does not teach us how to live.

I am not ashamed of Christ but sometimes ashamed of other Christians. Dear reader, if you are not a Christ follower, I pray that you look at Him and His teachings DESPITE what you might see and hear sometimes from those of us who try to to follow Him. As a favorite preacher of mine, Steve Brown says, "We are just beggars showing people where we have found bread."

What is the Center of Your Universe?

2011-02-24T05:49:00.003-05:00

I’m fascinated with the historical development of astronomy, but not because I’m some “Trekkie”, whose head is in the clouds. Ok, maybe my head is a little in the clouds, but that’s besides the point. This subject fascinates me for less than obvious reasons.

It’s not so much WHAT people believe but WHY we believe it.

This is an epistemological statement. "I think therefore I am" is an epistemological statement uttered by Emmanuel Kant. Epistemology asks why and how we come to believe in anything. How do we know what we know? How do we come to believe our worldview? It is not so much concerned with WHAT we believe (ontology). This is not to say that what we believe isn't extremely important. But if you get the WHY right, the WHAT is pretty simple.

I see this all illustrated in the historical development of astronomy. In the 2nd century, the majority opinion held to the Ptolemaic model to explain the motions of the celestial bodies. Looking at the above picture, you can see that this view held that the Earth was the center of the universe, with the sun and other planets revolving around it. Notice, that each planet had its own separate rotation. This is called an epicycle and it was added by Ptolemy to explain why planets sometimes appear to wander backwards in the sky.

BTW, for the Ptolemaic model to work, it also had to say that the planets' rotations did NOT center around the Earth, even though it did position the Earth to be in the center of the Universe:

I took the above diagram from http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-2/Historic-Dispute-Is-Earth-the-center-of-the-universe.html, which is an excellent web site to learn more about the historical development of our cosmological models.

The Ptolemaic view also held to the idea that everything in the universe has a perfectly circular orbit. It inherited this from Aristotle, who espoused the Greek notion that the "heavens" had to exhibit motion using only the Greek notions of perfect geometry. Circles are perfect in the Greek mind.

The Ptolemaic view explained the motion of the stars and planets very well. In fact, it explained them so well that it was able to accurately predict their motions. It was the predominant worldview for hundreds of years.

And here is where I get into epistemology. Even though this paradigm was able to successfully forecast the rising of Venus, and make other predictions, even though it was able to be used to map the motions of the celestial bodies, it was dead WRONG.

WHY was it wrong? It wasn't wrong because of faulty logic. The Ptolemaic view is entirely logical. The problem was with its assumptions.

In the 16th century, Copernicus suggested that the Sun was the center of these orbits. This assumption was considered a blasphemy worthy of burning at the stake. In fact, before Copernicus, Giordano Bruno actually suffered this fate for making the same suggestion. A little later in history, after Copernicus, Kepler adopted the Copernican model and strengthened it by throwing out an assumption. He suggested that the celestial bodies did NOT move in perfect circles but that they had elliptical orbits.

This one tweak in assumptions gave the Copernican model strength giving it more accurate predictions than the Ptolemaic model. About a hundred years later, Galileo comes along and brings new technology to the table in the form of a telescope. Using it, he is able to greatly strengthen the Copernican model. The church sentenced him to house arrest as a result.

As an aside, this is why I sometimes say, "I'm not ashamed of Christ but I'm sometimes ashamed at other Christians."

The reason that I'm blogging on this subject is not to teach astronomy or astrophysics. I am no authority in either area. But I guess not being an authority isn't stopping me from blogging on epistemology, so here I go.

Notice that both worldviews were logical and both were useful, but the false worldview could be said to be less useful than the Copernican worldview. Both worldviews could even make predictions but the Copernican worldview ended up being the better of the two.

Also notice that the Copernican view is simpler and yet further beyond our imaginations. It was simpler from a mathematical perspective that I can't attempt to explain, nor would anyone but a mathematician, be interested in reading. The Copernican view stretched the imagination more because it said that WE were in motion around the Sun. It is easier to imagine that every day when man has seen the sun rise and set that IT is moving not the other way around.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand. - Albert Einstein

And notice how presuppositions, not logic, was the primary issue. The Ptolemaic model inherited its presuppositions from a Greek philosopher named Eudoxus who espoused that the Earth was the center of the universe. Aristotle adopted Eudoxus' view because it fit into his philosophy. The Ptolemaic view survived and thrived because it worked. It wasn't as accurate as the Copernican view but it worked well enough to be accepted.

You can hold to many worldviews and get some "traction" out of them. Whether or not you are an atheist, theist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Wiccan, pantheist, animist, pagan, or something else, your worldview probably works in SOME ways. Perhaps your worldview works in MANY ways.

An assumption is the answer to a question unasked.

Question your assumptions. Don't assume because your perspective is rational that it is right. Don't simply engage others in battles over logic. As I continually explore this questioning process, I have found that its path orbits around a cross.

Kingdom Sweet Kingdom

2011-02-17T17:17:00.000-05:00

I believe in a place that the Bible calls “The Kingdom of God”. This is a place that I simply call “home”. Home is the place where a human being feels like they have arrived. It is the place you were made for. For a football player, you could say that home is what it feels like when you have just won the Superbowl, the ticker tape is streaming down and the fans share with you and your team in celebration on the world’s stage. For a musician, home may be the stage where they perform. For the parent, home may be as simple as having rocking that little one in their arms asleep, while singing a lullaby. Home is when you are with friends and family, sharing love with one another.

Home is more than a feeling, more than an ambition or ephemeral accomplishment. Home is living your life in the place where you belong, the place you were always meant to be. Home is doing what you were made to do. Home is the place where you lack nothing, a place of ultimate contentment.

Christianity, not only describes “home” as “The Kingdom of God”, and “Heaven”, but it is also found in the “living water” that Jesus offers to the Samaritan woman in John 4. This was a “living water” which would “heal” all thirsts. Home is the last drink you’ll ever need. Home is the last experience you’ll ever need to feel.

I focus on “home”, what Christianity also calls “The Kingdom of Heaven” because I am convinced, and need to preach to myself. What is that message? Focus on the Kingdom, focus on home, and you will not WANT to sin. Our potential to make foolish mistakes is eliminated if we can only maintain this focus.

A person who is dedicated to exercise will not exercise without a goal. They need the focus of being healthier, or being a better athlete, or improving their appearance. Exerting your body without this goal is not natural. Using guilt and fear tactics to get yourself into shape, telling yourself that if you don’t work out, the extra weight you carry gives you a higher risk of health issues, are not enough. A vision of greatness, wholeness and completeness is necessary.

This is what I call home. This is what Christ calls “The kingdom of Heaven”.

“Seek Ye first the Kingdom of God and the rest of these things will be added unto you.” – Matthew 6:33

What is the purpose of your life? Where is your home? Focus on the Kingdom and watch the struggle melt away. Nothing drives obedience like passion.

Diversity Speaks of Another

2011-02-08T06:00:00.000-05:00

E Pluribus Unum. Out of the many, one. Ravi Zacharias says that all philosophy is the search for unity within diversity.

How can you have diversity without an idea? For instance, if you look at other people, you will see an idea with infinite variations of expression. Whether we are looking at Brad Pitt, Nancy Pelosi, Jim Belushi, Miley Cyrus, Betty White, Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods or Donald Trump, we are seeing diverse people who share the 'ideas' found in the definition of what it means to be human beings.

They all have arms and legs, have to breathe, sleep and eat, have the same core needs, need to be loved and want to love. They all have the same basic hopes, dreams, ambitions, temptations, weaknesses, etc.... Yet people are diverse. Just looking at the examples I gave, you have people who are old and people who are young, females, males, white, black, mixed, intelligent and not so bright...

To be human is to share in an idea. In music, we have infinite variation also. Edgar Varese defined music as 'organized sound'. That definition is pretty close but not perfect. After all, the siren ringing we'd hear when a train is coming to a crossing, or the sound of emergency sirens are also organized in the sense that they pulse at a constant rhythm.

There is something more intangible in the music. Music is a a flow of ideas..... ideas that only make sense to a mind. Music is thematic and tells a story. It repeats ideas to hook the listener. It uses a certain degree of contrast to keep itself from having the monotony of a siren. Music is an idea.

Ideas can only be understood by a mind. If diversity screams 'IDEA', then 'IDEA' screams 'GOD'. If there is no God, then tell me why diversity exists at all, or tell me why everything isn't so random as to be chaotic. I can envision a world devoid of God being birthed by some natural process if every human was either identical clones of one another, or so different from one another that we couldn't even call each being a human because we couldn't be expected to have ANYTHING in common.

Imagining this second scenario, imagine one person being born with no such thing as legs and feet. Maybe they have wheels. Imagine the next person not being born, but being 'hatched' and having eyes in the back of their head, never needing to eat, because their body has mastered photosynthesis. The possibilities would be endless, the world would be full of monsters. If such a world existed, and there WAS a God, its creation would yield the reflection of a grand monster.

But instead, we have a world that yields themes. The sun can be counted to rise, shine and fall each and every day we live. But what that day yields in all of its detail will be unique to itself, never occurring again. That is a theme and themes are written by composers.

Diversity speaks of another different from itself. E Pluribus Unum. Out of the many one God.

Listen for a Who

2011-02-01T06:34:00.003-05:00

In the classic Dr. Seuss book, “Horton Hears a Who”, an elephant discovers a tiny world in a speck of dust. None of the animals can hear the life that he hears so they dismiss Horton as a nut case and try to take the little speck of dust away.

If you've read this blog enough by now, you'll know that I believe in asking the "why?" questions. I was probably the annoying kid in the backseat of the car asking my parents, “Why do you always drive over the speed limit? Why do we slow down for cops? Why can’t I drive?”

Often times I find we focus on the “what?” questions without diving into the “why?” questions. I can explain this blog you are reading to be a series of digital 0’s and 1’s (binary) that are electronically represented to your computer’s CPU and digitally interpreted as text and computer instructions that allow this amazing miracle of the internet to even happen. But if I don’t understand “why?” what good is such an answer?

Using this example, you can’t dive into the “why?” without diving into the intentions of the original developers (Arpanet), today’s web content providers and surfers of the Internet. The “why” question begs the question of purpose and meaning. Purpose and meaning inevitably point to someone’s volition, i.e. , their will.

When I ask atheists and agnostics the why questions regarding morality, I often catch them trying to give answers like, “well it is obvious” or “just because” or even “if you have to ask, you are a moron!” This is no answer at all. Answering “just because” to the questions of “Why is killing evil?” or “How can good be objectively defined?” is the equivalent of saying there is no cause for such beliefs. Something that is causeless would have to be eternal since it has no beginning. That is a divine quality. What has no cause except for God?

And this is something many people don’t understand when they ask, “Who created God?” Something HAS to be causeless. If an atheist rejects belief in God, they have to believe in a causeless process, a set of natural laws. They are replacing one problem with another.

Many times, I catch people unwilling to ask the why questions. I often find people are NOT willing to let their questions go deep enough. Sometimes it’s the old excuse of “since we can’t no everything, let’s bury our heads in the sand”. This mindset lacks discernment. Unfortunately, I see this often with people of faith.

But most often, I see people who are afraid to ask the why questions because they lead to a “who”. Horton gets the idea of having the people of Who-ville make the loudest noise possible so that the other animals would hear and believe. It took everyone in the community of Who-ville to get this word out.

If believers want to get the word out about the reality of God’s love, we need to be a living question, causing others to think the thoughts that lead from the what, to the why and from the why to the who.

To be a witness does not consist in engaging in propaganda, nor even in
stirring people up, but in being a living mystery. It means to live in
such a way that one's life would not make sense if God did not exist.

Cardinal Emmanuel Suhard

Incoherence Kills Relationships

2010-12-09T17:45:00.000-05:00

Ravi Zacharias (www.rzim.org) was once asked during a Q&A session where he had gotten the idea that truth is coherent. He answered by asking, “do you want a coherent or incoherent answer?”

Coherence is logical consistency by another name. I am afraid that I have learned that when a person lacks reason, they kill off the ability to communicate. As a result, one cannot build relationships with such a person beyond shallow platitudes.

Please understand that I am not defining a reasonable person to be someone who simply agrees with me.

I am also not under the naïve impression that logic is a truth detector. Logic does the best job of being a lie detector. I understand that one can be logical and be wrong. Euclidean vs non-euclidean geometry yields this truth. Both types of systems are logically consistent but yield contradicting results. If you’re not up to speed on the subject, this is Google material.

The above is so abstract, so let me illustrate with an example. For the sake of brevity, this example is oversimplified and hyperbolic, however it is still a legitimate illustration. Imagine someone states that they believe that the earth is flat. You show them a satellite imagery of the round earth and make arguments about the rotation of the earth affecting the day/night cycle. You point back to Magellan who was the first explorer to travel completely around the earth. The dissenter, instead of addressing each of those points, simply dismisses them as propaganda arguments, perhaps all a part of a grand conspiracy.

What more can you say or do when someone ignores evidence and reason but smile and nod or perhaps shake your head and walk away? At this point, the relationship has suffered. The relationship lacks the openness necessary to cultivate change and growth.

The sun has a “relationship” with plant life. Those plants open themselves up and reach towards the sun for nourishment and growth. You show me a plant that doesn’t do this and I’ll show you one that is dying. Reach for the light and you’ll find relationships. It may stretch you, but the stretching is the better alternative to death.

The Probable Impossible

2010-11-20T05:17:00.001-05:00

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."- Christopher Hitchens.

Although Mr. Hitchens and I both come from polar opposite perspectives, we can both agree on the above statement. Many people hold to faith without reason. But I would contend that you can't have faith without reason, nor reason without faith.

So why do I believe in Christianity? There are many reasons, but here is one simple argument.

I believe in Christianity because I believe in the collective accounts of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (the Gospels). The skeptic has no better alternative. It is one thing to naively believe in one account. This is what Muslims do with the Koran. But when you have multiple people saying the same thing, you either have the truth or a conspiracy. One thing that is improbable is a collective delusion.

For the skeptic to say that these books are a conspiracy, belies a reasonable motive. What did these writers have to gain by making up claims that there was a man (Jesus), who was the Messiah? What wares were they hocking?

The skeptic sometimes claims that these books were really written by the church when it came into power in the 4th century. However, we know for a fact that these books were written in the 1st century. The oldest complete manuscript of a Gospel text dates back to the 2nd century.

And what were the motives of such a conspiracy? Were the writers trying to gain money or power? If so, they failed on all accounts. The Gospel writers didn't go on a "book tour" nor did they gain political ascendency. In fact, they risked their lives by their claims.

Many believers gave their lives because they were convinced that Jesus Christ died and rose again and was the Messiah. Why is this any different from religious extremists today who do the same thing? The difference is that these early believers had the evidence to affirm or reject such claims. Many of these martyrs actually saw Jesus, living and walking the same ground He did.

"Always prefer the probable impossible to the improbable possible." - Aristotle

Sure, it stretches the imagination to believe in the claims of Christianity. But the alternatives take MORE faith to believe. In fact, whenever I encounter a skeptic who rejects the claims of the Gospels, I always challenge them to give a better explanation as to why they exist in the first place. I have yet to find a skeptic who can give a better alternative making the improbable more probable in the face of the impossible.

Illusions of Omnipotence in the Face of Hypocrisy

2010-11-20T04:26:00.004-05:00

I've never understood the mindset that says, "I reject Christianity because of hypocrites." To me, that is like saying any of the following:

I don't believe in the concepts of laws because of law breakers.

I don't believe in Government authority because of corrupt politicians.

I don't believe in food because of gluttony and food poisoning.

I don't believe in money because of counterfeiting.

What does the existence of a hypocrite Christian have to do with the validity of Christianity's claims? What has happened to the idea of discernment? What has happened to the idea of examining a belief for its claim?

I see this problem in the political arena as well. Someone will make an argument that they are against a particular political idea because of the behavior of individuals who advocate such an idea.

For instance, the Tea Party says that they believe in smaller Government, yet someone will say that they reject this because there might be racists in their midst. I haven't seen the "smoking gun" evidence of this argument but even if it exists, the existence of such racists has nothing to do with one's belief in smaller or bigger Government for that matter.

Why do we confuse personality with ideas?

Is it not because we have bought into "perception is reality" and made ourselves to be gods as a result? The logic flows this way. If perception is reality, then I no longer need to examine truth in an objective world. Instead, whatever I believe is true, despite whether or not it corresponds with reality. So if my perception is that the world is flat, that is what people call "my truth". In such a world, I don't need to test my belief. It logically follows that I will "choose my own truth".

BTW, such a person would make a lousy scientist. The scientific method requires that we test all beliefs before holding them. Science is only acting upon truths that transcend its borders.

Perception is the only reality the non-discerning can ever know.

Isn't the ability to make truth into what we wish limited to someone who would have to have omnipotence? If so, then why do we act like WE are omnipotent in the face of pending death? In the end, we all die. Isn't this truth the ultimate reason to reject illusions of omnipotence?

Do you still believe that perception is reality? Then try living with a belief that you will NEVER die. But I warn you. In the end, life will slap your perception in the face. I attempt to warn you more gently.

On A Stranded Island Looking For Reason

2010-11-13T06:55:00.005-05:00

It is impossible for a man to marry his widow's sister.

Imagine you have made this statement and are confronted with a dissenter. Now imagine your dissenter accuses you of being a bigot, cramming your "family values" down other people's throats instead of actually examining the substance of the quote.

I can't tell you how many times I've been in such arguments. Many times, I find that we bring our own stereotypes and prejudices to the table and react to style instead of examining substance. Why do people fail to examine substance? I see this as the death of reason.

I'm sadly coming to the conclusion that many people do not live by reason. As you can see by this blog, I'm a "why" person. I ask both of others and first of myself, "why do you believe in x?" I believe it takes boldness to ask such questions because the answer could take us to places beyond our comfort zones.

I've been in many, many debates with people and found that when I probed the "why" questions, it didn't take too long before I learned that the dissenter did not have a reason to hold to their position. In some cases, where I might have been successful at revealing this, I would have expected the dissenter to be open-minded enough to consider re-examining their beliefs. And thankfully sometimes this is the case. But more often then not, I have found that the dissenter will persist DESPITE a lack of reasoning for their position and will often accuse me of being defensive because I'm always coming up with reasons for my positions.

Before I proceed further, let me say that I am far from perfect and am wrong more times than I know or would even care to admit. Many times, I'm on the wrong end of the argument. But because I try to follow the truth no matter where it takes me, I have seen growth in my worldview as a result.

I also need to say that I do NOT believe that reason is the end-all, be-all of truth. I am convinced that we need reason coupled with sound presuppositions. At the core, all of our presuppositions are grounded in faith. And because faith is ultimately volitional, meaning that we believe what we want to believe, our hearts must be pure. A pure heart means that we must love the truth more than our pet beliefs or winning an argument. We must even love the truth over our comfort zones.

We don't see the world as it is. We see the world as we are. Anias Nin

With the above said, I am beginning to conclude that the death of reason is the death of communication ifself. When I am in a discussion with a dissenter and discover that they are not deterred if I am successful at exposing their lack of reason and when I see that they lack a curiosity to explore the reasons for my position, the only thing I have left to do is to smile and nod at them. This cuts off the communication. This is why I am suggesting that the death of reason is the death of communication. The death of dialogue is the death of community.

When we lack reason, we vanquish ourselves to islands, stranded from the coasts of truth.

The Search for Intelligent Life Amongst Dissenting Voices

2010-11-06T07:05:00.001-04:00

Often times, I am disappointed that people so easily dismiss opposing viewpoints as non-intelligent.

One of my favorite blogs (13.7), has an article that although is well-written, does this:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/11/04/131064192/lose-your-wimp-embrace-your-intellectual#more

This particular posting implies that one has to be a liberal to be intelligent. But I have also seen conservatives do the same thing. And in light of the latest political spin on the election, I think this topic is especially relevant.

The mistake often being made is that intelligence should be gauged based upon the logical coherence of the conclusions of an argument to presuppositions.

For instance, conservatives generally hold to the presupposition that man should be held accountable to his actions. The religious conservative will usually hold presuppositions that man is "bent" towards selfishness and greed (the idea of "original sin").

As a result Conservatives logically conclude that man's actions aren't excused because of a poor upbringing and social environment. Therefore Conservatives are more likely to support imprisonment and even the death penalty over rehabilitation.

BTW, I know Christians are usually lumped into the right, however I believe that a true grace walking Christian will be a stronger advocate of rehabilitation. I always say, "I'm as conservative as the Word of God and as liberal as the love of God."

Where it gets difficult is that the philosophical presuppositions that give us political, philosophical and religious worldviews aren't usually empirically verifiable. I think religion does the best job of recognizing this by calling it faith. But is it not also faith to ultimately believe that man's ultimate longing is for freedom (Neo-conservative presuppositions) or that man is primarily a product of his environment (liberalism)? I'd love to see equal recognition that these presuppositions are held in faith in politics and philosophy. Even science has this problem. Just look at its speculations on the multiverse theory or even its dogma on the origins of life. The origins issue is a unique event that occurred once. It can't be ultimately tested in a laboratory and repeated. This is a demand of empiricism.

The bottom line is that I have met intelligent and stupid people on both sides of the philosophical and political spectrums. It is closed-minded dogma to dismiss people as non-intelligent simply because they disagree with my worldview.

If a person has consistent reason connecting their presuppositions with their conclusions, we can at least say that they are intelligent. This doesn't make them right or wrong, only logical. BTW, truth does exclude arguments that are logically inconsistent.

Beyond logical consistency, we get into the biases that often shape the faith that undermines our presuppositions. At that point, we are in the territories of volition, the visceral and the heart. This is why it is said, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth."

Sometimes we believe in our presuppositions because they make us feel comfortable and secure or are otherwise to our advantage. We must have the courage to believe the truth no matter where it leads and the love of it to pursue it at all costs. Since loving an "it" is ultimately impossible (a misuse of the overused word "love"), does it not make sense that a loving God is ultimately the truth we seek?

Dangers In Under-communicating

2010-11-02T21:17:00.000-04:00

One could argue that I over-communicate. But Eugene Robinson’s article is why:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/02/race_and_the_tea_partys_ire_107805.html

I’m politically an independent and not interested in pushing my political views on this blog, so please listen to me with an open mind, regardless of your political persuasion.

If you go to the Tea Party’s web site (http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Mission.aspx), you will see that it stands for the following issues:

· Fiscal Responsibility
· Constitutionally Limited Government
· Free Markets

As anyone can see, these three line items have absolutely NOTHING to do with racism. So why does Mr. Robinson connect the Tea Party with racism?

When the Tea Party makes statements like “we want to take back America” and “we want to return America to the American people”, he speculates that the Tea Party wants to take back America from minorities or return it to a pre-civil rights era.

So if a party legitimately believed in these three bullet points and had NO racial prejudices, how could they communicate these views without getting distracted by the allegations of discrimination?

Let’s put aside those who will shout “racism” and “bigotry” just to muddy the waters and advance their agendas. Those folks are beyond reasoning. Addressing them is like what Jesus called “casting your pearls before swine”.

But what about legitimate misunderstandings like Mr. Robinson’s? I believe that the Tea Party is mis-communicating by under-communicating. If I were a Tea Party member, I’d say something like, “We want to take back America from the big Government politicians.” I’d even communicate disclaimers like, “Belief in a smaller, more responsible, accountable and limited Government, is Constitutional. It is a belief that all of us, White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc., can believe in.”

But such communication is virtually “footnoted” and footnotes can be laborious to read. Thanks for reading.

Open Mind, Open World

2010-10-31T05:16:00.001-04:00

I'm a musician. And unlike most musicians that I've met, I'm very "geeky" about what is "under the hood" of music in terms of music theory and analysis.

As a result, I tend to get bored with your average commercial music. The only mainstream music I listen to is Contemporary Christian. I seem to be able to look past the musical limitations probably because of the message and the fact that I can listen to it in worship to God.

But music that obsesses me almost always has a very technical side to it. Usually, it is technical combined with melodicism. I see such music as holistic, meaning that it is both propositional (music theory) and visceral (melodic). But sometimes, I'm simply listening to jazz fusion and loving it.

People who don't understand it call it "wierd" but I see them as being like people who watch a 3-D movie without 3-D glasses. It looks strange to them because they lack something very valuable.

Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out. But at the same time, open it enough to not simply dismiss things that you don't like or understand. Sometimes what we call wierd, is really amazing. Sometimes our derogatory labels, say more about our ignorance than they do about the objects of our criticisms.

Free to Not Have All the Answers

2010-10-30T06:47:00.000-04:00

Looking at John 4, when Jesus encounters the Samaritan woman, I am struck by how Jesus didn’t take the simplest and most direct path in communicating to her.

While the whole chapter could have been greatly abbreviated by Him meeting her and simply telling her something like “I am the Messiah and here’s the proof. I know that you have had 5 husbands…”, instead He takes a more ambiguous path.

He starts out asking her for a drink of water. He then claims He can offer her “living water”. This is an ambiguous statement, proven by her following questions. This pattern continues. He keeps saying things to her that are less than direct. He purposefully says things to make her ask questions. He is inspiring her her think.

Where is God when we suffer? Where is God when we are in the valley? Where is He when we are on the mountain top? He reveals enough of Himself for us to ask the questions and to think but not enough to prevent us from seeking and knocking.

“Ask and it shall be given to you, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened to you” – Matthew 7:7

We seem to complain when presented with the closed doors and the open questions. But without them, we can neither seek or ask.

When we present Christ to the world, we often try to open the doors for them, giving them answers instead of questions.

But in John 4, we see just one of many, many examples found all over Scripture (look at God’s answer to Job in the whirlwind) where God doesn’t give us answers but questions. He presents closed doors so that we’ll have something to open.

If you’ve ever played hide n seek, you know that you spoil the game to have the seeker close their eyes and count to 100, only to open them and find you standing in front of them.

When a baby bird is born, it has to use its beak to peck away at the egg. The temptation for a compassionate human observer is to help it break away the egg. However, if we were to do such a thing, it would die. It builds up its strength by pecking away at the egg.

To be a witness does not consist in engaging in propaganda, nor even in
stirring people up, but in being a living mystery. It means to live in
such a way that one’s life would not make sense if God did not exist.
Cardinal Emmanuel Suhard

As Stanley Hauerwas writes,

What is crucial is not that Christians know the truth, but that they be the truth.

That truth is a living mystery, inspiring people to think, loving them to soften their hearts. We are free not to always have the answers but to be the question.

Death By Contentment

2010-10-06T22:16:00.001-04:00

I've seen it too many times.... a musician who has been playing for many years who has not grown beyond the skill level of a beginner. What happens to cause this?

Many times as the person is learning their instrument, they get to a point where they can play some songs and become content.... TOO content. Furthermore, they lack the curiosity and creativity to "question their instrument". For instance, on a guitar, they don't think to ask, "What if I were to tune the guitar to an alternative tuning and learn to play it?" or "What if I learned a new scale shape a month?", etc...

The benefits of contentment are obvious. But these are its detriments. Beyond them, notice the lack of questioning that comes from it. Has life itself dulled you into such a sense that you are content with your perceptions of the world? Or do you have a natural curiosity that comes from a sense of awe and wonder, coupled with the humility to realize that because of human frailty, you must always question at least yourself?

Such questioning not only makes for a great musician, but for a great human being. Don't be content with the answers. They are often times disguised questions waiting to be discovered by someone not content with anything less than the depth of truth.

Truth Without A Christ Context

2010-09-30T19:32:00.002-04:00

LeRon Shults, former professor of theology at Bethel Theological Seminary, wrote:

From a theological perspective, this fixation with propositions can easily lead to the attempt to use the finite tool of language on an absolute Presence that transcends and embraces all finite reality. Languages are culturally constructed symbol systems that enable humans to communicate by designating one finite reality in distinction from another. The truly infinite God of Christian faith is beyond all our linguistic grasping, as all the great theologians from Irenaeus to Calvin have insisted, and so the struggle to capture God in our finite propositional structures is nothing short of linguistic idolatry.

This is a fantastic thought but woefully incomplete. This is truth without the context of Christ. Yes, Christianity (and all the major monotheistic religions) confirm that God is infinite and beyond description. However, if an infinite God wants to communicate to a finite being, He will limit Himself in that revelation.

When a parent speaks to a child, do they use their "native" adult language? Maybe that parent holds a doctorate degree. Do they use high-brow academic language when speaking to their toddler? Aren’t family physicians taught to limit their technical jargon when communicating to their patients?

Christianity says that the infinite God has revealed Himself in a finite way. This is profound when you consider that this finite way was in the physical form of Jesus Christ.

Christ is the ultimate set of propositions. The Scriptures literally call Him “The Word”. The very statement “There are no absolutes.” is an absolute statement.

With the above said, let me also write against the other extreme. God cannot and should not be reduced only to a set of propositions. The scriptures describe this “Word” as living, walking, breathing, talking, dying and resurrecting. He healed the sick, gave sight to the blind and loved all. Unlike other gods who claim to love us, He proved it by giving His life, something your average god can’t do.

BTW, this answers the age-old philosophical question, “Can God create a rock that He can’t lift?” Yes He can and He did. He is infinite so He CAN limit Himself. He HAS limited Himself so that we can know Him. We cannot know the infinite. This doesn't mean He is limited in ability, only in presentation to us.

In other words this God who is infinite in ability, has limited His will. The Godliest thing we can do is to do the same. THIS is why belief in the Christian God is tied to morality, character and integrity.

But people that reduce God to just black and white, tend to be dogmatic out of what appears to me to be a sense of insecurity. I think they are insecure with NOT knowing. This is antithetical to the idea of faith.

Faith is a moderation of belief. It is to believe something enough to not be a persistent, consistent skeptic but to doubt it enough to not be dogmatic. Anything else is extremism of belief. At least that’s what I believe, but I can’t be for sure.

The What of Science, the Why of Religion

2010-09-14T17:07:00.006-04:00

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/09/08/129723362/god-and-no-god-mongering-a-new-cycle-of-science-vs-religion-begins-anew#more says the following:

Garner in fact quotes Ferris along these lines. Following his God-mongering comment, Ferris writes: "Cosmology has more than enough to do trying to figure out how the universe works without also flattering itself that it is going to tell us why. Religious systems are inherently conservative, science inherently progressive… [It doesn’t] seem likely or even desirable to imagine that they are headed for some sort of rapprochement. This may be an instance where good walls make good neighbors.”

In other words, science is best equipped to answer the questions of “what?” and “how?” while religion is best equipped to address the question of “why?”. This is why science has virtually nothing to say about our morality, yet religion has tons to say there. Morality is tied to purpose. Purpose is tied to a purpose maker. The million dollar question is whether or not that purpose maker is a transcendent God or left to each individual.

This is why I laugh at the atheist who says they reject belief in God because of some transcendent moral code. The more they affirm such a transcendent moral code, the more they affirm God’s very existence. To say that it is wrong for an innocent little baby to suffer in a world where there is no God, is equivalent to saying that the Government doesn’t exist but failing your taxes is still against the law.

There IS a reason why it is wrong for an innocent little baby to suffer. Life has a purpose. That purpose is not yours or mine.

The Power of Persuasion

2010-09-10T07:43:00.003-04:00

There are many ways to fall but only one way to stand. The road that leads to faith can be traveled via a crutch, via wishful thinking and projection, convenience and mindless traditionalism, or by thoughtful submission.

If faith is not achieved through thoughtful submission, WE become gods, creating truth based upon our desires and convenience, or out of an unexamined set of "creature comfort" habits.

To arrive at faith through thoughtful submission requires that one love truth more than one's convenience, comfort or desires. That is the "submission" component.

For such a submission to be thoughtful, requires a search for truth itself. If you believe you have found such truths, you can help others do the same only through persuasion.

It might be a cliche but I often say that cliches are repeated because they are true and ignored because they are repeated:

People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care.

You'll never have someone's heart or mind until you have their respect. You'll never have their respect until you give them the same. Such respect doesn't mean that you have to agree with them. It simply means that you show that you care for them as opposed to caring for winning an argument and nurturing your pride.

This brings me to the latest controversy regarding the burning of the Koran. Burning another religion's holy book does NOTHING to persuade. If Rev Terry Jones were to have gone through with such a thing, does he really believe that even ONE Muslim will in sackloth and ashes be convinced of the teachings of Christ as Lord of all? Can Mr. Jones point to even ONE example from his Christian faith or from secular history where an offensive act has acted as a persuasive one and changed the hearts and minds of the offended?

But you might ask, didn't Jesus offend the religious leaders of His day in similar acts when he took a whip into the Temple and drove away all the money changers? Didn't Jesus do a similar thing when He called the religious leaders of His day "vipers" and "broods of "snakes", et al?

The key to understanding Jesus' repudiation of the religious leaders of His day comes in His motivation to point out hypocrisy. He constantly pointed out the logical inconsistencies of the religious leaders of His day as they claimed to follow the law of God yet failed to love their neighbors as themselves or love God with all their hearts and minds.

If offenses should come, Christ followers should be offending religious attitudes held by people like Mr. Jones. I hope to make a small contribution there with this post.

If Mr. Jones follows this same Christ, the Christ who taught that it was better to give than to receive, better to love than to hate, better to lose one's life than to try and save it, is He reflecting Christ by merely inciting anger and hate with those in whom he disagrees?

Did Christ call me or Rev Terry Jones to burn books or to set hearts ablaze?

The Taste of Goodness In The Pursuit Of Truth

2010-09-08T07:38:00.004-04:00

In my last post, I wrote about the limitations of logic. Both Stephen Hawking and James Lee were extremely logical in forming their worldviews which also share many similarities.

In past posts, I have referenced Ravi Zacharias's criteria for truth. Truth must be:
1. Logically consistent
2. Empirically adequate
3. Existentially relevant

I have had the hardest time getting my mind around #3. But things have gotten clearer lately, so I'd like to share these thoughts.

It seems to me that it might be easier for we human beings to test for health than truth. When I say "health", I am referring to our very being. One might say "good" rather than health but because I am only talking about good relative to us (does a belief equip me to be a better person in some way), I prefer the word "health".

In my last article, when I spoke of the paranoid person being just as logical as the healthy person, I demonstrated how paranoia can be logically justified. The presence or absence of logic is no savior in in clearing the muddy waters here. However, the paranoid person can become so restrained as to no longer live a healthy life.

I am seeing this in a close family member of mine. His paranoia prevents him from being able to work. He would LOVE to have a job but he can't be around crowds nor can he be around a blaring radio or t.v. He can't function like a healthy human being. But his paranoia is far from being irrational. But I believe that the truth sets us free. As a result, it brings what we might call health. The truth equips us and makes us better people.

THIS is why I'm not an atheist. Atheism, when followed consistently, means that there is no transcendent purpose maker in life. It means that I define purpose and that purpose only applies to me. I can change that purpose whenever I want to whatever I want. I become my personal god.

But I am a lousy god. We ALL are. Tiger Woods was god of his life when his supermodel wife wasn't good enough for him and he expanded his horizons. James Lee was a lousy god when he decided that the best way he could get the message out about his worldview was to change the programming of the Discovery channel. Most of us write letters. He decided to strap bombs on his person and use a gun. Lyndsey Lohan is a lousy god to herself, offering her an escape from pain through booze rather than true healing.

I could go on and on with the examples, but the point is not to throw rocks. My message is simple. DON'T simply follow your heart. DON'T simply trust yourself.

I believe in Psalm 37:4 which says, "Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart." At first glance, this appears to paint God as a divine waiter. But reverence for God doesn't allow such an interpretation. Reverence directs me to this interpretation. God is saying that as we delight in Him, He will be the SOURCE of our desires. All of a sudden, as I submit my life to Him, I start wanting what HE wants for my life. THEN, I can follow my heart because it has submitted to Him.

Can you test this worldview to be true? No, but you CAN test it to be healthy. You can test it to determine whether or not it works. You can test whether or not it is good.

"Taste and see that the lord is good" - Psalm 34:8

The Insanity of Logic Estranged from God

2010-09-03T05:30:00.011-04:00

Stephen Hawking has announced that that God is no longer necessary in order to start the Big Bang:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/02/stephen-hawking-picks-physics-god-big-bang/

He also is warning us to abandon the earth or face possible extinction:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/02/stephen-hawking-picks-physics-god-big-bang/

The latter, resonates with what the the recent Discovery Channel bomber James Lee was saying. James Lee, influenced by Daniel Quinn's series of books and Al Gore, believed that humanity was "filthy", that the earth would be better off without us, and that we faced extinction if we didn't stop global warming. He believed we needed to stem the population growth by no longer having children:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/02/stephen-hawking-picks-physics-god-big-bang/

Before I go any further, let me be unequivocal in saying that I do NOT for a moment place Mr. Hawking in the same category as Lee in terms of a proclivity towards violence.

But both of these men share dire predictions, building their reasoning upon humanistic, naturalistic presuppositions.

I would actually agree with their conclusions that if the world is merely a product of naturalistic random processes, independent of God, then we are doomed unless we can take extreme actions.

One can be logical but be wrong. Logic is as only as truthful as its presuppositions. Both a young-earth creationist and an evolutionist can look at the same Grand Canyon but logically come to different conclusions based upon different presuppositions. The evolutionist will claim, a lot of time and a little water formed the Canyon. The young-earth creationist will claim that a lot of water (Noah's Flood) and a little time formed it.

Positivism is a philosophy that says that science can NOT say what is ultimately true. It can only correlate observations. In other words, it can only connect the dots.

The task of science is not to find out what nature is, but only what we can say about it.

Science can ask what and how. This line of questioning is authenticated by technology. Science can not answer "why". This is the domain of religion. When one asks "why", one is inherently asking about purpose and purpose is ALWAYS tied to someone's will. "Why" is therefore tied to "who". For the atheist, "who" is us. It is me and you. For the person of faith, this "who" is outside of ourselves. "Who" is God.

It is funny for me to watch atheists and agnostics moralize, asking questions along the lines of, "If there is a God, why does evil exist?" as if they can justify a logical definition of good and evil outside of God's very own existence. If God doesn't exist, why can't I eat pork or abort a baby in the womb? Because YOU say so? Or because the law might say so?

As C.S. Lewis learned when he was an atheist, for him to say the world was broken assumed that he had a reference point (the idea of good). But where did this reference point come from? A fish doesn't complain about being wet. It doesn't even know it is wet because all it has known is water.

"If you are really a product of a materialistic universe, how is it that you don't feel at home there?" --Encounter with Light

I greatly respect Mr. Hawking and have learned a lot from him. My respect comes from the fact that he is extremely gifted in his use of logic. But logic alone will cause one to go insane (ala Mr. Lee). As G.K. Chesterton pointed out in his classic book "Orthodoxy", the paranoid person is also logical.

They believe everyone is out to get them. When you tell them that is not true, they say, "Well of course you'd say that. You're out to get me. You would say that." Reasoning can not penetrate such thinking. Logic has limits. Its limits are in the realm of faith.

For more information, check out:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/08/18/129289331/can-science-explain-creation
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/08/27/129471676/my-covenant-with-mystery

Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/chesterton/orthodoxy.html

Also, check out my favorite blog 13.7's post on Hawking and God:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/09/08/129736414/hawking-and-god-an-intimate-relationship#more

The Truth We Dare Not See

2010-08-24T22:02:00.002-04:00

This 18 year old girl had her nose cut off by the Taliban. We live in a world where bad things happen to good people. This picture is one of the greatest proofs that you and I can't choose truth based upon what we like, or what makes us feel comfortable.

So often, I write in this blog about how we are afraid to look at truth. But I believe that it is healthy for us to look at these things. The truth will set you free. This is why I believe in eternal damnation. It is NOT because I like the doctrine of hell. The fact that I hate this doctrine proves that I am not projecting or engaged in wishful thinking. To reject a belief because it is unpleasant would be equivalent to rejecting the existence of death itself. But it is wise to write a will and to buy life insurance.

The truth will set you free, if only we dare to see.

A Great Storm, A Greater Message

2010-08-20T05:01:00.014-04:00

I'm concerned about the state of my country and the broader world. These observations will not be constrained by the political ramblings of those who hold strong party loyalties. If my politics is coherent with my philosophy, it too will be about seeing the bigger picture that transcends Republocrat and Democan.

911 changed everything. Osama Bin Laden targetted the world trade center because it was a symbol of America's economic strength. That economic strength is a key to our military strength. That military strength is a threat to Bin Laden's worldview. Bin Laden is an enemy of Israel. I believe Israel's strength has been given to it by God. But He has used the U.S. in the process.

9 years later and look at our economy today. We have record unemployment and seemingly no end to this recession. Those in political power today believe we can spend our way out of such woes believing that economic growth starts from the top down. They bailed out financial institutions saying they were "too big to fail", took over a controlling interest in GM and nationalized our health care.

The other side of the political fence spent money on war. In Afghanistan, I ask whether or not we have a clear definition of victory. Do we have a clear achievable objective? I'm not so sure... In Iraq, we toppled Saddam, but inadvertently strengthened Iran as a result as we upset the balance of power in that region. Now Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear nation with a tyrant in control who has visions of bringing about the next Islamic Imam through an apocalypse with Israel, "the little Satan", in his sights.

Back at home, our defecit is on target to match our national debt in a few years. China is funding our overspending by buying t-bills. "He who has the gold, makes the rules." The only way we can continue our massive spending on bailouts and two wars is to borrow from them.

Our nation's leaders, just as dependent upon financing, are beholden to corporate lobbyists that influence them to support policies that gut our middle-class by outsourcing their jobs overseas. Yes, we get great prices by buying imports at Wal-Mart and Target that were made in China, but look at how this has impacted our employment numbers.

Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae and the like collapsed in part because our nation's leaders relaxed regulations saying everyone should have a right to own a house. But when you add to the outsourcing of jobs overseas, you can see how many people who once worked in blue-collar jobs in auto manufacturing, or even in white collar high-tech, lost their jobs and could no longer pay those mortgages.

Pretty depressing eh? Why do I write such things? I am a Christian. Post 911, Every weekend I have walked through the doors of churches and NOT heard a hint of these things. Yes, I've seen the effect of these things as I've watched brothers and sisters lose jobs and struggle. But week after week, I've only heard messages while important and valuable, are mostly insular. Those messages have been on how to become better people in the form of internal Spiritual transformation.

Don't get what I'm about to say out of context. I believe that the root of the problems that I have described is due to the church's lack of ability in being a powerful influence in the field of debate. We have failed to transform our culture's worldview. The path that I have described is a logical path of a secularist, humanist culture clashing with religious extremists (the terrorists).

Spiritual transformation is at the root of the problem. That transformation will only come about as Christians first BE the change that we preach, and secondly communicate that message. We have failed to be an effective influence. Many times, we are saying the right things in the wrong way. Space does not permit me to expound here but I've went this direction in other blog posts.

With the above said, my concern is this. When the storm that is brewing comes, who will buy into the church's credibility? If we have been only talking about how to be better people, but have been silent in warning the flock and non-believers when they lend an ear, aren't we rendering ourselves to being irrelevant and undiscerning?

How can I trust Christians in shining light on my soul's spiritual path, if they can't even demonstrate such wisdom on national and world issues right in front of our noses?

I'm laying out the warning now so that I don't fall into the same pit. I don't have a crystal ball and I hope I'm wrong. But get your house in order. Save your money now. Buy gold as a safer currency. And most importantly pray, pray, pray. Build your house upon the rock so that when the storm comes, it will stand.

When the greater storm comes, perhaps the wisdom and foresight that you'll see in this post will grant me the authority and credibility for you to lend me your ear in hearing the greater message that I have been speaking in this blog and in my life.

For more information and greater detail from a brilliant economist, check out Paul Craig Roberts' article: http://www.infowars.com/the-ecstasy-of-empire/

Despite, his rants against Israel, he has an enlightening perspective.

Avoiding Meaning

2010-08-04T22:28:00.003-04:00

I walked into a popular Mexican food chain today and ordered a burrito. This is one of those places that customizes the toppings in front of you according to your direction. When I asked for onions, they almost acted like I was from Mars! You would have thought that NO ONE EVER puts onions on a burrito but me. I know this chain's competitor does....

I feel like this when I ask the simple question "why?". I feel like people treat me like I'm from Mars. It often seems as if I'm asking a question that is not obvious to most people but VERY, VERY obvious to me.

I wonder if the "why" question is obvious to everyone, but is the "pink elephant" in the room that everyone knows to ignore, but I never received that memo. Here it comes.... "why?" Perhaps we are afraid of meaning. Sure it could give us a fulfilling life but meaning means purpose and purpose always involves someone's will. Volition means being and we don't want to face the only being that could possibly give life transcendent meaning.

Why does the pink elephant look like God?

Remembering for the wrong reasons

2010-06-29T17:27:00.002-04:00

The great thing about traditionalism is that it has a good memory. The bad thing about it is that it remembers the wrong things. It has forgotten why it should remember in the first place.

Why? Well that is the problem... It doesn't ask the question "why"?

It seems that many people throw out their brains for denial purposes. I think the dominant mindset says something like, "If I think, I'll find that my faith is not true and have to face the idea that it is just my crutch."

With that said, I think this is an ill-formed opinion. Reason necessitates its own limitations. It is reason that says that the earth doesn't revolve around me, i.e., their are truths that exist outside of my ability to know them. To believe in such things would therefore require faith. But such faith can be informed.

For instance, we believe that the universe is expanding not because we can directly see it expanding, but rather because we can see a red doppler shift in the light spectrum of the cosmos. And just because we can't even begin to imagine what it is expanding into, or what is beyond space, doesn't mean that we can't believe in the expansion.

"He alone stretches out the heavens..." - Job 9:8

Traditionalist Christians have (and still do among many Catholics) conducted their worship entirely in a dead Latin language that died with the Roman empire. Why? If they even ask this question, how can they come up with any other answer except, "because that's what we've ALWAYS done."

"An unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates

Question your traditions. If they have outlived their purposes, why not throw them out? This is not a repudiation of traditionalism. On the contrary, traditionalism tied to purpose, is to be lauded.

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. " - George Santayana

Traditionalism tied to purpose says, "Remember, so we don't repeat the same mistakes our others before us have."

THAT is why we remember. THAT is the purpose of traditionalism.

"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead." - G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Torchdown Jesus

2010-06-17T06:28:00.004-04:00

I've come to the realization over the last few years that I am more embarassed by some of my fellow Christians than I am of Christ. The "Touchdown Jesus" statue's recent demise is just another example.

I'm sure that the church that erected it had the intention of using it as a sign to point people to Christ. But this is the problem with many of my Christian brothers and sisters. They are trying to give the world simple answers to complex problems. Speaking in baby-talk to adults, they will sport bumperstickers that read, "Jesus Saves", while the non-christian is scratching their heads wondering what they need saved from. Another popular bumpersticker reads, "Jesus Is the Answer", while the non-believer might be asking, "What is the question?" "Lord save us from your followers" is a more aptly written bumpersticker.

Most non-christians who passed the giant Jesus statue on I-75 have deeper issues that keep them from coming to Christ. Those issues are much deeper than simply seeing a giant statue. They need to be engaged by Christ followers who demonstrate God's love through acts of kindness and whose lives well lived, demonstrate they have found the real answers to life's deepest questions. In many cases, non-believers don't even know the questions they should be asking. They need believers lives to be the questions they should be asking. They aren't ready for answers personified on the highway to questions they haven't yet asked.

To my Christian brothers and sisters who doubt me, I ask. Why has God hung this whole thing on the ambiguity of faith? He could have given a witness clearer and more explicit than a giant Jesus statue. Have you not noticed the paradox of the Gospel? Examples of these paradoxes include, "If you want to lead, you must serve" and "if you want to receive, give."

This pattern of paradox is reverberated by St. Francis of Assisi, "Go forth and preach the Gospel and if you must use words."

The depths of the truth that God has given us are too great to be expressed in a giant statue. Don't give the world answers. Give them questions. Make them think with an honest heart.

If you want to teach, first learn. If you want to point the way, first walk the way. If you want to make a difference, first be a difference. If you want to show people answers, be the questions. Is THIS not why God is pleased by faith instead of certainty?

Messages in the Experiential

2010-06-08T17:15:00.005-04:00

Atheist's often embrace death as something to be accepted as natural and normal.

But what does the above picture say to you existentially? In other words, how does the image of death make you feel?

Not exactly feeling warm and fuzzy? Why is such a negative visceral reaction so natural and normal?

Contrasted with the end of life, what about the natural and normal responses we experience looking at the start of life?

Is it insane to act like these feelings don't exist when we look at the end of life while hypocritically embracing them when looking at the beginning of life?

I would be the first to stand up and say that a life lived only by feelings is a life lived in folly and will be cut off prematurely. But should these feelings totally be ignored?

Could it be that the feelings we experience looking at these things are signposts? If so, how can we reconcile the sign of a newborn's birth telling us to celebrate a life that inevitably ends in death?

It is enough to make one insane. Insanity is the height of brokenness. But perhaps instead of letting this dissonance break us, we can let it break the world. The world is indeed broken. By recognizing this, I can rise above the cocophany of dissonance and look for what ought to have been.

But one cannot acknowledge what should have been without presuming upon the idea of purpose. And purpose always has a purpose maker.

These Greek pillars are beautiful works of art. We couldn't also call them ruins unless we knew that their original purpose was to support a coliseum.

Don't ignore the questions of purpose. They are the most important questions of life, illuminating our understanding and pointing to a greater purpose maker.

Exploring Boundaries: Faith & Reason

2010-06-08T16:54:00.002-04:00

I believe in the integration of faith and reason. Even many of my Christian brothers & sisters disagree with me here, I am not alone. Pascal, Edmund Burke, Augustine, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias and many many others would echo this affirmation.

When we put on seatbelts to ride in a car, we do so because logic says that the seatbelts make us safer. However because we cannot absolutely know whether or not we will arrive at our destination safely, our decision to ride in the car is based upon faith. Furthermore, if the driver of the car was inebriated, reason would dictate that such faith would be even less founded, if not unfounded.

I believe in Christ but not without reason. But because my reasons can not absolutely prove Him to be true, I still have faith. There is a reason that the Bible says that the Christ who could walk through walls in his resurrected body rolled away the stone from His tomb. It wasn't so that He could get out. It was so that we could see in.

I have blogged on the reasons for my faith in other posts and will not reiterate them again. But now that I have established this nexus of reason and faith, let's explore their limitations.

The limitations of reason are less obvious to many. Maybe you've read about the philosopher who asks questions like "How do I know I exist?" and "How do I know that I'm not really asleep living in a dream?" Go without food and drink for a while and you'll know that you are alive even if you can't explain how or why via reason. We somehow know that we exist but we can't explain how.

The limitations of faith are obvious. I can have faith that the world is flat, that I am the king of Narnia, that I am going to be healthy, wealthy, famous and wise, but reality does not always conform to our faith.

I can have faith that the oil currently spewing into the gulf of Mexico will miraculously stop but I cannot presume my faith upon God's will. It is only when I know the will of God that my faith can have traction.

What is at the boundary of reason if it is not faith? And what is at the boundary of faith if it is not God?

Hijacked Christianity

2010-01-16T05:56:00.004-05:00

Pat Robertson recently said this about the recent Haitian Earthquake:

"They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil,"

Christianity has been hijacked by people like Pat. If you're not a Christian, you could easily dismiss its claims by thinking that people like Pat are accurately representing what it means to follow Christ.

Pat is speaking this way because he is assuming that he is a prophet. Jesus also claimed Divine authority. In Matthew 9, He tells a sick man lying on a mat that his sins are forgiven him. The religious leaders of His day were skeptical even believing that Jesus was blasphemy.

Now Jesus didn't simply tell them to have blind faith and believe He was a prophet. Instead here is His response:

5Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

If Pat is REALLY speaking for God, he needs to authenticate such authority. I'm a computer geek. Working in IT, I am often challenged to authenticate who I am before gaining access to computers, networks, files, resources. In computers, you authenticate yourself via a username and password.

If Pat speaks for God, then we are NOT simply asked to believe it via a blind faith. Pat needs to authenticate his claims via some miraculous work that can only come from God. Mr. Robertson will NOT do this.

While it IS true that the Haitians practice voodoo and that Christianity condemns such practices, it would be presumptuous for anyone except a true prophet, to say that they knew that this earthquake was a judgment from God.

I can't tell you how many times I've debated with non-christians and had to deal with the distractions of the caricatures that they mistook Christianity to be.

G.K. Chesterton once said, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

So I implore both non-christians AND Christians, don't believe that these claims represent the teachings and example of Christ. I also challenge other Christians to take back our faith from the hijackers.

Questions that Shake Us All

2010-01-16T05:08:00.005-05:00

The earthquake in Haiti should remind us of old questions, not new. Why does evil exist? Why do people suffer? Why do bad things happen? I often hear this last question phrased as "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

Jesus was approached by a man who predicated a question by addressing Jesus as "Good teacher". Jesus asked him in Mark 10:18, "Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone."

If we really want to know about suffering and evil, we also need to know about goodness. What does it mean for something to be good? I realize that not everyone reading this posting even believes in the existence of good and evil. Some people believe that these definitions are imaginary and arbitrary in the sense that what we call "good" and "evil" is merely what we like. We might call something pleasurable good and something associated with suffering evil. Of course many people call sex outside of marriage evil, or a drug-induced high to be at least a bad thing.

These are just two examples of things that might bring short-term pleasure for long-term loss or suffering. Let me suggest that these things bring pleasure within the "smaller picture", but there is a "larger picture", a "greater purpose" to serve. If we serve that "greater purpose", if we are driven by it, we inevitably will be drawn to what we commonly call "good".

My favorite Christian teacher, Steve Brown (www.stevebrownetc.com) says, "Everyone needs a metanarrative." We all need a larger story to explain the small stories of our lives.

My heart goes out to the Haitian people. I don't understand the smaller story. I can't dogmatically say why this has happened, but I can respond with love, prayers and giving because my life is driven by a larger story, His story.

Christmas: Truth was born. Did anyone notice?

2009-12-25T08:02:00.006-05:00

I'm writing this blog on Christmas morning, having already spent Christmas with one side of the family and getting ready to spend it with the other side. One side of the family is Christian and the other is not. One side is conservative and the other side liberal.

But what is most interesting to me is that on both sides, truth has died. There are at least three tests for truth (I get this from Ravi Zacharias (visit www.rzim.org).

For something to be true, it should be:
1. Logically Consistent
2. Empirically Adaquate
3. Existentially Relevant

I'm not going to unpack these points in this morning's blog because my larger point is that there are tests for truth however they don't matter if you don't believe in the very concept of it.

The family time I get around the holidays reminds me of this as I get to see it first hand. On Christmas Eve, we were sitting around watching family videos of Christmases past. In one, my wife is found singing Amazing Grace. One family member says something about her "singing religious music".

Simply calling it "religious music" is a fantastic way to ignore the contents of the message. It's a great way to be the ostrich. I've seen lots of people simply dismiss things as being "religious", which seems to allow them to never question whether or not it may be true. In their minds, religion is simply something you believe in to get through life. It is something that can't be tested, hence the tests above never get applied.

Truth has died in this nonchristian family.

But the same can be said for another side of my family that IS Christian. They will also never use the three tests I listed above (or any test) against their faith. They HAVE the religion that keeps the other side of our family from ever changing their ways.

They have beliefs but don't ask them WHY. They've never taken it that far. I disagree with a significant portion of their denominational interpretations, but because they don't test the truths of their faith critically, they are not open to change, thus the dialog is cut-off.

What is most strange to me is that neither side would apply such thinking to non-religious worldviews. Neither side would for instance, when faced with crossing a busy street corner, simply think that the belief in whether or not a car is crossing their path is simply someone's opinion or experience and should NOT be tested.

You might also say that religion is different in that it makes claims that are not testable. I agree that many religions make such claims, but Christmas should remind us that Christianity goes much farther. This Christmas day presents to us the intersection of God with humanity, the transcendence of God as He crossed the line of the supernatural and traveled into the natural, taking on flesh and being born a human baby, one that could be touched and seen and heard. Will you ignore the baby in the manger?

Truth Will Not Bend To Our Wishes

2009-12-09T06:05:00.002-05:00

Imagine a world where the truth of reality was only that which we liked. In such a world, what would keep us from thinking that we were God? After all, only an omnipotent being can choose what is true based upon His desires.

Perhaps this is why so much of life has truths that are not pleasant to the human mind. What is the most certain truth of life? Is it not death?

And to think that some people claim that perception is reality. Just try and perceive death away. It nags like a mother-in-law's scorn.

We can try to choose our faith and make life conform to our wishes, but there is something about reality that will not bow to anyone else but its maker and we are not He.

Excavating Heads from the Sand

2009-11-27T06:51:00.005-05:00

Be open minded, not so much that your brains fall out. When it comes to religion, so many so called "open minded" people seem to assume that religions only make claims that can NOT be tested. As a result of such thinking, they don't analyze religious claims, testing them to see if they might be true. Can you get more narrow-minded than that?

Sure, I can't claim every belief proclaimed by every religion is testable. For instance, when Islam claims that that the Koran is its only miracle in that it is divinely inspired, how do you test such a claim?

But on the other hand, when a religious worldview makes a claim on human nature, or makes a specific prediction of an event that has already passed, or on the nature of the universe, where such claims are testable, why should we bury our heads in the sand in the name of being "open-minded"?

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel gave us a system known as the dialectic that can basically be summarized as, postulate a thesis, test it against it's antithesis and come up with a synthesis. An example is in order:

Some worldviews claim that the universe is eternal. This is now testable. The Hubble satellite has found a red shift in the universe that indicates that the space is expanding. This is further confirmed by the fact that the farther we look out in space with a telescope, the closer stars and galaxies are clustered. If space is expanding, then it must have had a beginning.

Before the 1500's, the common worldview was that the heavens were unchanging. In 1572, supernovae were discovered. It would NOT be open-minded to say all worldviews are true therefore both sides of the space is or isn't changing are right. It would not be discerning to ignore the evidence that points in one direction. So why do many people treat religious claims differently?

Occam's razor is validated through the dialectic process. Occam's razor says do not multiply entities unnecessarily. In other words, Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS method). When Copernicus theorized that the celestial bodies were not orbiting around the Earth, it wasn't because of observation, but because of the simplicity of the model.

Later observation has confirmed Copernicus, further validating Occam's razor as a result.

Using the dialectic process, I can't believe in Hinduism because it claims the existence of millions of Deities, thus violating Occam's razor of not multiplying entities (Deities) unnecessarily.

Although, I have the most respect for it, I reject Buddhism because it's answer to man's suffering is to make man essentially numb by prescribing that we rid of ourselves of all attachments. Medical science can do this by medicating someone into a vegetative state. If you think that is too extreme of an example, I have watched a close family member medicated with antipsychotic medications that took away this person's "attachments" and made them lethargic and carefree.

I reject Islam because it says kill infidel. Faith can never be coerced or imposed. BTW, I don't claim every Muslim to be such an extremist, but I would suggest that a moderate Muslim is contradicting the Koran which they try to live by.

However Judeo-Christianity makes some testable claims that I can't find a fault in. It has been saying that the universe is "spread like a tent" in over ten places within the Bible.

Judeo-Christianity teaches that there is one God, although I admit that the concept of the trinity is a threat to complying to Occam's razor.

Despite the historical exceptions where people in the name of Christ have killed others in crusades and inquisitions, the actual teachings of Christ are clear that the Gospel is to be spread through persuasion (preaching) and NEVER through such means.

And what Judeo-Christianity says about human nature is probably most profound and easiest to validate. It claims that man's nature is bent towards selfishness. Among so many other things, it also validates our human right to own possessions thru one of the ten commandments stating "Thou shall not steal."

The success of nations with capitalist economies validates this combination. Capitalism. Unlike other economic systems, which either try to make everyone equal in what they own, or where the Government owns everything, modern history gives us an undeniable truth that an economic system that capitalizes on man's selfishness, turning it into a means for him to serve others for gain, yields the most success. BTW, I don't claim capitalism is perfect.

It has been said that the world would be perfect if it weren't for people. 90% of the evil that occurs in the world is not the result of natural disasters or sickness. Most of the suffering that occurs in the world the result of the selfishness and lack of restraint of others.

This lack of restraint can sometimes only be justified by altruism. Altruism only makes sense if there's a God who is always looking even when others are not. When we CAN get away with committing a selfish act, dishonest gain, etc., the only reason we can come up with to walk the straight and narrow is if there is a God who keeps score.

I've quoted it before, but it bears repeating. Cardinal Emmanuel Suhard once said:

"To be a witness does not consist in engaging in propaganda, nor even in
stirring people up, but in being a living mystery. It means to live in
such a way that one s life would not make sense if God did not exist."

Life without altruistic behavior would be unlivable, so why wouldn't a life lived without God be the same?

Lambert Controversy is about purpose NOT expression

2009-11-25T06:48:00.004-05:00

The latest Adam Lambert controversy at the AMA music awards (see http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/11/23/2009-11-23__adam_lambert_delivers_raunchy_ama_performance_filled_with_hip_thrusts_crotch_gr.html) gives the illusion of being about censorship, but make no mistake, this is really about purpose and meaning.

After the show, Lambert hailed his shocking performance as freedom of expression. But if one were to ask Lambert if it would have been acceptable to have paraded children in provacative poses, I'm not so sure he would have defended such expression. And I'm certain that if a Christian entertainer would have performed at the awards and made explicit expressions of worship, statements on the sanctity of unborn life, or statements about God making a man for a woman, he wouldn't have defended these in the name of expression.

As I proceed, please don't get me wrong. Except for the expressions of worship, I don't think the Christian entertainer in my hypothetical would be wise in going this route. I'm only pointing out that this is NOT about freedom of expression. This is about what people call "values".

With that said, I don't like to use the term values, because I feel that it is a term that has been hijacked. It is a term that people say without really thinking about what it might mean. I will therefore frame the concept differently.

One more disclaimer. I'm not one of those Christians who acts like homosexuality is underlined and highlighted in Christian teaching as the greatest sin. Furthermore, I believe in treating such people with compassion and would NEVER advocate violence or even a judgmental attitude expressed towards them.

I can't speak on the specifics of Lambert's worldview, but he obviously doesn't believe that homosexuality is immoral, nor does he seem to hold a high standard for heterosexual expressions.

On the other side, to simply object to Lambert's antics as being immoral fails to get to the heart of the issue. I believe that life has a purpose. That purpose is given by a God. That God has an intention for our relationships. Lust in any form violates that purpose. This is akin to someone desecrating a cemetery (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31832393/). Should such actions be defended as freedom of expression?

Why would this appall us? In the story, the employees desecrated the cemetery to free up plots so that they could resell them. They were out to make a $. This is where their "values" lie.

The reason a cemetery desecration appalls us is because inherently, we know that life has a purpose.

I'm not mad at people like Lambert. I feel sorry for them. They live the same purposeless lives we've seen Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, and others live before them. They aren't happy people because they have been willing to sacrifice purpose for their own lusts. They have exchanged the joy of life for a bed. Unfortunately, they will have to lie in it.

God Outside The Box

2009-09-28T17:00:00.002-04:00

Do atheists disbelieve in God because of a lack of evidence, or simply because the evidence suggests a God that doesn't fit within our natural human expectations?

I suspect the latter, more than the former.

I was in awe of the eastern sky this morning. As the sun set low in the sky, it was hidden behind a mist of clouds exuding hues of blues, pinks and yellows. The imagery inspired a sense of mystery and awe.

My scientific mind would expect a God who can be detected, hence placed under a microscope and observed, measured, predicted and reduced to a set of laws.

This world we live in with its suffering and death, coupled with its beauty and order, suggests that if a God exists, God transcends our imaginations...

Are you willing to believe in a God who is outside of your box?

Why do we ask questions?

2009-09-21T16:57:00.001-04:00

A coworker of mine pulled up www.google.com one morning and noticed today Google had their logo branded as a crop circle. His first reaction was to put up his hands and ask if today was national crop circle day.

Everyone asks questions about life. Why do we ask questions? Is it not because we are driven by coherence? Are we not wired to make sense of the world? Why would this be? Why are we so hungry for meaning and purpose in life?

WHO's purpose are we hungry for? Maybe you've never thought of this question before, but how can purpose exist independent of a being that actually has a will?

We can speak about the purpose of a chair being for people to sit in. As a result, even though practically a chair can function as a table or as a step ladder, we all seem to know that anyone who uses a chair in such a manner is not making the most of the chair's ultimate purpose. This is certainly not the intention of chair designer/manufacturers.

OTOH, some art is created with a different philosophical approach. We've all seen the type of art that causes us to ask, "What is it supposed to be?" The artist's answer can usually be summed up to be "It is what it is. It is supposed to be what you see and nothing more." I believe such artists are trying to escape this questioning process that is inherent within our very human nature. The artist might try this because so many of life's questions are unanswerable. But they won't be able to escape the average observer from asking such questions. Why is this?

Standing at the crossroads of life

2009-09-19T07:41:00.003-04:00

In a post entitled, "The Power Of Volition" borrowing from Ravi Zacharias, I wrote about 4 tests for truth:

1. The establishment of objectivity
2. The test of empirical adequacy
3. The test of logical consistency
4. The test of experiential relevance

An astute animal rights activist can defend vegetarianism and meet all of the above criteria with the same skill that a meat eater can.

The vegetarian, believing that we evolved from monkeys as their presupposition, demonstrates a logically consistent argument in concluding that we shouldn't eat meat as a result. They even draw a sense of higher purpose as a result of practicing vegetarianism.

As for empirical adequacy, they might point to the facts as they interpret them in the forms of fossils, carbon dating, etc...

The meat eater can make just as valid of an argument, also meeting the above criteria. Pointing to the fact that humans have teeth that are naturally designed for tearing out flesh, they can logically conclude that the human species was designed to eat meat. By advocating a form of creationism that concludes that there is a separation between the Creator and creation, they logically conclude that man has been specially set apart from the animals.

They also point to thefacts in the forms of fossils, carbon dating, etc., but interpret them in a way that supports THEIR arguments.

I once heard a young earth creationist state that both an evolutionist and a creationist look at the same facts of the Grand Canyon, one saying, "A lot of time and a little water", while the other says, "A lot of water (Noah's flood) and a little time" formed it.

In the end, life seems to present to us forks in the road. In our scientific age, we seem to believe that all of these forks are answered via the empirical process, however empiricism only answers the surface questions.

The deepest questions of life are never answered, they are chosen. Life forces us to choose. It as if life is testing our hearts.

Why would the universe care? It doesn't? But there is a God behind the universe that does care?

Love is a choice. What do you choose when standing at the crossroads?

The universe posed as one giant question

2009-09-19T04:25:00.003-04:00

The universe is a mystery. We look up at the cosmos and see balls of energy in the form of stars and planets, swirling around in what seems to be ordered chaos (not unlike jazz music).

Many people see this to be evidence that life as we know it came about by random chance processes. In such a world where chaos is natural, why is it that our human nature tries to see the order in life?

"If you are really a product of a materialistic universe, how is it that you don't feel at home there?"
--C.S. Lewis, "Encounter with Light"

If nature has produced us by random processes and chance, then why does this bother us?

Is the universe really silent because we live in a cold and impersonal world, or is it the silence of a library which allows one to best study its contents?

Faith Directions: To have faith, believe here.

2009-09-17T22:23:00.003-04:00

I have made the case for faith in "The World Screams Faith" as well as other blogs. But this just begs the question, "What shall I have faith in?"

This world that screams faith, imposes faith decisions on us every day. Whenever we get into a car to drive to a destination, do we absolutely know with 100% certainty that we will arrive at our destination safely? I just passed a fatal car accident yesterday where thd driver's van was turned upside down.

Like that driver, we cannot absolutely KNOW anything, much less whether or not we will arrive safely at a destination. Now, would you get in the passenger seat of a car, put your seat belt on and let a totally inebriated driver take the wheel for the next 30 minutes on a busy interstate?

What's the difference between these two scenarios? Is it not found in the probability of you reaching your destination safely? Is it not found in the amount of reasoning you are able to apply given each scenario? Since theoretically your fate could swing either way, your choice is based ultimately on faith.

I advocate a rational faith. A faith that takes in the facts and boldly asks all the possible questions, willing to go wherever those questions might lead.

Someone has said that capitalism is the worst economic system in the world except when compared to all other economic systems in the world.

It is a fantastic leap of faith for me to believe in all that Christianity stands for, but it is a ludicrous leap of faith for me to reject it.

I believe in the testimony of the 40 authors who wrote the 66 books of the Bible, spanning over 1000's of years and crossing many cultural boundaries. I don't hold this faith because I can prove it. I hold this fantastic faith because rejecting it is impossible when considering the facts.

Skeptics who claim that its claims are fictious fail to give an alternative explanation that requires less faith than the Christian faith to which I hold.

The strongest and most common criticism they levy is the claim that the New Testament (N.T.) was written by people in high powers of Government throughout history in order to control the masses, gaining money and power through belief.

We believers stand in awe of common themes that exist between the O.T. and N.T.

My favorite one is to simply compare John 3:16 with Genesis 22:

John 3:16, the most famous verse in the Bible, says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only son so that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life."

This scripture is a one verse summary not only of the Gospels as they unfold their story in the N.T., but also of the O.T. story of Abraham offering His only son Isaac as a sacrifice in Genesis 22.

But the skeptic believes this coherence was manufactured. They believe that the four Gospel writers collaborated and wrote their accounts to purposefully mirror the O.T.

These same skeptics will point out the differences in various Gospel accounts. Yet, if the four Gospels are the result of a collaborative scheme, why would the authors give varying accounts of some stories? Why would they disagree on some details?

And none of this explains the motives and veracity of the O.T.

A plausible alternative explanation has not been offered by the skeptic. It takes great faith to accept Christianity, and a greater faith to reject it.

Given the volitional nature of faith established in previous blog postings in the Pendulum Effect, life (or as I believe God) asks us the question, "What do you WANT to believe?" Such a question tests our heart's desire and tells us what WE are, not what this world is. The telescope that we try to aim outwardly, has turned inward becoming a microscope. What starts out as an attempt to search outer space, becomes a discovery of "inner space".

What were you made for? Does your heart scream "ME, ME, ME!", or does is beg to serve someone greater?

No Useless Truths

2009-09-12T08:48:00.002-04:00

Expounding on the previous post of "The Experience of Serving Truth", I ask, in the course of man's empirical discovery of the universe, would we ever throw away truth discovered that we might render to be useless?"

I tried to formulate an illustration of this question, but discovered something else. The very foundations of this question are flawed. Is there even such a thing as useless truth?

Imagine for example that our telescopes, penetrating depths of the universe never before uncovered, reveal unique random flashes of light particles. Despite the subsequent years of research, we can discover these light particles to have no other effect other than our ability to see them and we can find no cause for them.

Just because we haven't discovered something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but leaving this truth aside, wouldn't such knowledge still be useful, if nothing else simply because it would stimulate our curiosity?

So if there is no such thing as useless knowledge, then does this mean that at least the empirically known universe is full of knowledge that is meant to be processed by mankind? If so, then who designed it for such a purpose and why?

The Experience of Serving Truth

2009-09-12T08:26:00.003-04:00

Imagine someone living their entire life in a virtual reality. In the future, it may be possible to simply put on a set of glasses that provide a completely alternative sensory experience of sights and sounds. In this new virtual world, the person might experience virtual people that they relate to.... people who practically worship the participant, giving them all their hearts desires, making them the center of this virtual world.

The scenario is not so far-fetched. We already have first person video games that are played in similar ways. Or imagine a person who might choose to medicate their lives away into a virtual reality created by the euphoria of drugs administered via a perpetual IV.

In both of these scenarios, the person has chosen their reality. In both cases, the participants aren't hurting anyone. So what is it about these possibilities that bothers us? Why do we feel like these virtual players are wasting a life that has been given to them? After all, the life they would have lived in this world would have paled in comparison to the life they get fed to them via technology or meds.

What is it about our experiences that demands to serve truth? If God is truth, what does this say about how we might be wired?

The Litmus Test of Eternity

2009-09-11T20:48:00.005-04:00

I've never heard this taught within Christian circles, but I am convinced that Christianity teaches us that we can think of good as being that which is in our best interest for the longest term (ultimately eternity).

Lust isn't wrong because I might like it. It is wrong because it might give me short-term gain but long-term sorrow. Stealing isn't wrong because it might satisfy a desire for a material thing. It is wrong because it will satisfy that material desire temporarily (not to mention the fact that it harms my neighbor).

Don't get me wrong. There is a deeper definition of good, simply being defined as God's character. His character transcends us. It is not dependent upon us. God doesn't revolve around us. But where His goodness does touch us, we can think of it as I have defined above.

This is why Peter was rebuked by Christ when he spoke against Christ going to the cross. Peter couldn't see far enough into the distance to understand the meaning of Christ's sacrifice and resurrection. His myopia caused him to reject that which is good.

Without an eternal perspective, we'll misjudge goodness as well.

Sometimes God will look evil, especially in light of the suffering and evil we see and experience in this world. He can look evil in the light of the events that happened 8 years on this day (9/11).

It's often hard for me to believe, but Romans 8:28 says, "He works all things out for the good of those who love and Him and are called according to His purpose." At the same time, it is EASY to see how having such a positive attitude will bless my life.

"Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him." - Psalms 34:8

Fueled by Passion

2009-09-10T21:18:00.003-04:00

Outside of my 40 hr IT job, I work 2-3 other jobs.

Those jobs are all in music, where I teach guitar at Cedarville University, teach at McCutcheon Music, and serve as a worship leader at a church.

When you add up the additional time I'm putting into these music professions, I'm probably putting in an additional 20 hrs/week NOT including drive times where my commutes can be up to 45 minutes!

In addition, I write and record music, practice guitar a lot, play gigs and even get to record music for television commercials on occasions.

Why do I do it? I don't do it because of the bill collectors. I don't simply do it to keep my head above water financially.

I'm fueled by passion. I have a passion for God and music that frees me. Such a passion energizes me.

So many religious people try to do the right thing out of a sense of obligation, duty, guilt or even fear. At what ever level they may succeed, they are successful walking zombies, presenting a "Night of the Living Dead" religious faith that is hardly worth the effort.

Perhaps you haven't rejected God. Perhaps you have rejected religious people who in the name of God, only know Him through guilt and fear.

So many people reject Christianity arguing that the Bible presents God as a draconian, fire-breathing, hate filled deity of wrath. Could it be that in the earliest days of God revealing Himself through history, man didn't have enough of His revelation to have the maturity to follow Him through love and passion, therefore being left to stumble in the early morning twilight via fear and judgement?

Sure I believe that there is a heaven to fear and a hell to shun. As I've written in the past, I hate the doctrine of hell, but if my spiritual worldview does not hold any unattractive/undesirable doctrines, I should raise a red flag. That religion is my idol of wishful thinking. Since the things most real in this life (suffering and death) are unattractive, my faith should hold the same resemblance if it is to even possibly be true.

BTW, this is the greatest problem of the liberal mind. If the belief is unattractive, the liberal mind tends to reject it out of hand.

But at the same time, a great leader doesn't lead via deterrence unless He/she absolutely has to. A wise leader leads by incentive whenever possible.

I believe that for the immature, fear is often the only way to lead. The only way we can keep our dogs out of the street is with shock collars, loud intimidating voices and threats of newspaper beatings. A dog doesn't have the maturity to be motivated by all the benefits of staying in the yard; benefits like staying alive and healthy, living a long life with a family that loves them, etc....

The Bible says, "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." Let me suggest that the "Love of God is the completion of it."

Passion is contagious. I believe that God wants to energize and fuel our lives by a passion for living out the purpose to which we were made.

"Delight Yourself in the Lord and He will give you your heart's desire". Psalms 37:4

The Abstract Nature of the Supernatural

2009-09-10T17:01:00.004-04:00

Have you ever noticed how as soon as we name something, it becomes demystified?

Judeo-Christianity tells the story of Noah, building an ark for years and telling people that it was going to rain. The story says that it had never rained on the earth before and that up to this point, the earth was watered with a mist that came up from the ground.

If it had never rained before, I sincerely doubt that a word for "rain" existed in ancient times in any language. It is therefore easy to imagine Noah saying "I'm building this ark because water is going to fall from the sky and flood the world."

When you say it like this, the warning is even more unbelievable. The event becomes veiled in a wording that appears to be mystical and supernatural.

We have words for all sorts of things that otherwise look miraculous when you think about what they really mean:

The miracle of life: "fertilization"
Caterpillar turns into a butterfly: "Metamorphosis"
The rusting process: "oxidation"
The power that keeps us on terra firma: "Gravity"
A force that permeats the universe: "Radiation"
A series of colored lights forming an arc: "Rainbow"
Any repeated connection of events: "Scientific Law"
Lights in the heavens: "Stars"

G.K. Chesterton wrote:

It is the man who talks about “a law”
that he has never seen who is the mystic. Nay, the ordinary scientific man is strictly a sentimentalist.
He is a sentimentalist in this essential sense, that he is soaked and swept away by mere associations.
He has so often seen birds fly and lay eggs that he feels as if there must be some dreamy, tender
connection between the two ideas, whereas there is none. A forlorn lover might be unable to
dissociate the moon from lost love; so the materialist is unable to dissociate the moon from the
tide. In both cases there is no connection, except that one has seen them together. A sentimentalist
might shed tears at the smell of apple-blossom, because, by a dark association of his own, it reminded
him of his boyhood. So the materialist professor (though he conceals his tears) is yet a sentimentalist,
because, by a dark association of his own, apple-blossoms remind him of apples. But the cool
rationalist from fairyland does not see why, in the abstract, the apple tree should not grow crimson
tulips; it sometimes does in his country. - Orthodoxy pg 29

So what is it about our human nature that causes us to think that because we might name something, or even call it a law, that it is less mystical as a result?

As Shakespeare once said, "A rose by another name still smells the same." Is water falling from the sky any less miraculous if it is simply called "rain"? Is a meteriologist's explanation of the conditions which produce rain any different than the fairy godmother's explanation of the existence of Cinderella's glass slippers?

Is a scientist's explanation of why the earth has a gravitational force pulling us down, any less miraculous than the theologian's explanation of why faith in Christ's resurrection will raise us up?

As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I also agree with Martin Luther who said that the Bible is God's "baby talk" to us. In the course of Him communicating to us in a way that we can understand, the Word is demystified to the degree that it becomes more propositional.

This demystified Word presents Jesus Christ as the son of God, who lived like no man has ever lived before or since, who offered Himself as a sacrifice for mankind, and did the ultimate thing in coming back from the dead. That sacrifice and resurrection gives Christians hope to share in the crucifiction of sin in our lives via grace and the promise of new life in being "born again" here and after our physical deaths.

But when I say it like this, the story sounds more like a formula than the miracle that it is.

But as I meditate upon these truths, the abstractions that naturally accompany the meditation process seem to melt the propositional nature of this revelation away.

What I'm left with is the story of God reaching down to man in his despair and need, pulling us out with the ultimate expression of love, giving us the freedom that all of us long for, but few find.

I don't believe it is coincidental that Jesus Christ is called the Word of God and is described as being humble.

The irony of this coincidence is that as the Word is humbled, its power increases, the story unfolds and transcends the mind, also reaching the heart.

The World Screams FAITH!!!

2009-09-09T16:49:00.002-04:00

Nature abhors certainty.

For theists such as myself, if the cosmos were created in such a way as to place the earth at its center, perhaps in a universe where the earth was the only planet in existence, it would be more difficult to be an atheist.

Atheism is no walk in the park either though. The fact that the earth exists at the precise distance from the sun to allow for life as we know it to exist, screams intelligent design. The odds of the earth's precarious position coming about by random processes and chance are astronomical.

As a result, neither theists or atheists can hold on to their worldviews with certainty. BOTH viewpoints require faith.

And as I've stated in a previous blog, faith is volitional. Faith says more about our hearts and what we want the world to be, then it does about how the world might actually be.

This is why two people can look at the same world and interpret it in totally different ways, and both have equally logical and strong arguments to support their positions. Debate victories usually go to the best debater, not necessarily to the person who is right.

It is as if the world was designed to force us to have faith. And if faith is volitional, tied to our wills, then it is as if something, or better yet someone, is testing our hearts, asking us to choose....

Boldly seek, Boldly find

2009-08-27T17:05:00.003-04:00

Boldness of thinking is tied to critical thinking. This is why men tend to be more analytical.

I know that I speak with the bias of a man. If you are a female reader, please don't let your bias keep you from seeing things are they are. I promise to try and do the same, starting by exposing the weaknesses of the analytical mind.

Oscar Wilde wrote that a cynic understands the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Analytical people are often cynics. In a purely analytical world, we have the world of Star Trek's Spock, a cold world where things are understood, but not enjoyed. Everything is in a box, but nothing is in our hearts.

The analytical mind can understand, discover and build things. But it takes the visceral/experiential mind (i.e. the heart) to enjoy them.

The heart is our safe place. It is the place we can call home. But don't get too comfortable with that snake in the bed, or those termites eating at your home's foundation. The rhythm of that dripping faucet isn't meant to provide the same comfort as the rhythm of a mother's heart. A person who is lead by their emotions and throws out their mind is blind. Having no discernment and lacking the boldness to ask questions, they have no answers and inevitably fall into a ditch.

There is value in the yin and the yang, the analytical and the visceral, the male and the female.

It is with my mind that I can ask questions and it is with my heart that I can receive their answers no matter what they may be.

Prepare your mind by boldly asking and prepare your heart by boldly receiving.

The Silence of God

2009-08-20T16:10:00.007-04:00

Let's face it, if God exists, He is silent.

What makes us question better than a mystery?

And what brings an answer better than a question?

And what allows us to think about those answers better than silence?

God's silence asks us to question, telling us a mystery and whispers the questions that are more important than the answers.

Bold Thinking

2009-08-18T21:55:00.002-04:00

Truth requires bold thinking.

How many times have you, or someone you have observed, failed to learn a software program (or computers in general) because it appeared to be too complex? Does it not take a boldness of thinking to ignore such perceptions and to trod on?

As a musician, if I tell someone that a chord is a G7#5b9, the name itself can intimidate many musicians. I've met musicians and songwriters who claim to want to get better at their crafts, but as soon as they hear concepts expressed that sound complex, their tendency is to ignore or downplay them.

But isn't anything that is difficult or complex, merely a concatenation of a bunch of simpler things? When you break down computer codes to their simplest forms, they are merely 1's and 0's.

I'm not in love with the imagery of this aphorism, but it has been said that the way a snake swallows a pig is one inch at a time. I've found that nothing is so complex that it can't be broken down into simpler elements. It takes boldness to do the breakdowns. It takes questioning to make the complex understandable.

Complexity is an illusion. The illusion is shattered by breaking things down. The questioning process breaks the complex down into the "bite sized chunks" we need. Have the boldness to question and a bias towards truth and nothing less. Be willing to surrender all that you believe if the process threatens it. Have the boldness to be willing to surrender it all.

Coexist. An Imposed Delusion

2009-08-08T06:42:00.009-04:00

I see cars with the above bumper sticker all the time. I believe in peaceful coexistence and totally agree with the idea that religions should not let disagreements turn into violence. While the thoughts behind the bumper sticker are well-intentioned, I think some of them are also shallow and disrespectful of the distinct qualities of religion.

First of all, it is as if the person with the bumper sticker thinks that all they have to do is tell religious people to coexist and wha-la, peace will magically happen. And no wonder they believe this. Most people seem to believe that religion is nothing more than a self-imposed delusion meant to help people get through life, feel better about themselves and provide guidance. They see religion as something that serves the religious.

But what the bumper sticker misses is that many religious adherents actually believe their faith conforms to reality. We actually believe that it is TRUE. Imagine that!

There is a funny thing about truth. You can't pick and choose it. Have you ever noticed how the world is probably nothing like you would have designed it? In my foolish logical mind, if I could have designed the world, it would be so utilitarian as to have nothing but 90 degree angles, human beings would have wheels instead of being legs to walk, and the cosmos would not exist in its vast emptiness. The Earth would be flat but never ending and there would be no other planets or worlds beyond it. People wouldn't differ in heights, abilities, or privileges of any kind. I don't think I would have had the creativity or the wisdom to have created beauty, not seeing any practical value in such a thing....

Doesn't this alien world we live in scream "You don't get to choose truth"? Our very genetics reverberate this sentiment.

Then why do we think that when it comes to religion, things are different?

The reason that I'm a Christian is because I have found no better explanation of its stories than the one that says, "they must be true". Believe me, I've tried thinking that it was made up by the authors of the Bible, or by the church, or that Jesus was merely a man who has been mythologized over time, etc.... Every alternative that I've considered took MORE faith than simply believing as a Christian.

I believe Christianity is true, NOT simply MY truth. For instance, when Christianity says that humanity has a fallen nature, I believe that applies to everyone, even non-christians!

The fall of man (and creation itself) might not be absolutely proven, but it still can be tested. I've found no test that disqualifies it but no smoking gun to absolutely prove it 100% without a doubt either. The greatest proof I've found of this and other Christian truths is simply that by living my life as if these claims are true, I have found the best way to live. One popular Christian teacher (Steve Brown of www.stevebrownetc.com) says that Christians are beggars who having found bread, are simply pointing the way for others to do the same.

Good religious people can disagree and argue their points. Not only would I say that the debate needs to continue, but we don't do enough debate. Critical thinking should prevail. We don't talk enough about religion, treating it as a taboo subject. But how can a system of belief that addresses the most fundamental questions of life, such as what is its very purpose and what happens after death, be ignored? Isn't that the height of insanity?

As a Christian, I reject reincarnation. I can't prove that this is the only time we go around any more than the Hindu or Buddhist can prove reincarnation. But I can demonstrate how the Christian belief in only one life on earth causes one's life to be better for it.

I sense that "coexist" means "live and let live" by not even debating or discussing our differences. I see it as affirming relativism when it comes to matters of faith. I have to reject such an affirmation. And anyone proponent who expresses disagreement with me, is certainly no relativist. How can someone who believes all truth is relative and one's perception is truth argue with someone else's perception?

I believe in the dialectics of Hegel. It says that truth is to be found by forming a thesis, an antithesis and a synthesis. In other words, you start with a belief, you test that belief against its opposite and you let that testing process flesh out what is and isn't true until you find the truth.

If your faith is true, it can not be threatened by debate. If it is false, why would you want to nurture and protect it from debate?

Finally, I want to say that the best thing that a "coexist" proponent can do to encourage peace among religious people is to encourage Christians to follow Christ. By truly following Christ, there is no room for imposing my faith through coercion or violence. The same is true of many other religions. Unfortunately, I can't say this is true of every religion....

Does everything have to have a beginning?

2009-06-18T07:28:00.006-04:00

Pascal once wrote that belief in God is incomprehensible and disbelief in God is inconceivable.

The same can be said about the infinite/eternal, but I think of it in different wording. Imagining something or someone to not have a beginning is difficult to comprehend, but not as difficult to imagine.

Imagining something to not have a beginning or end, might be difficult because of our finite point of reference. Everything we humans observe in this world has a beginning, even the universe (see below). However just because everything we know has a beginning doesn't mean that everything HAS to have one.

Science has confirmed that the universe has a beginning. The logic goes that because of the doppler effect found in cosmic background radiation, we know that space is expanding. If space is expanding, then it must had a starting expansion point.

Science has also confirmed that the universe has an end. Our telescopes find dying stars all the time. Our sun has a very definite lifespan. When the sun goes, life on earth as we know it will cease as well.

This confirmation of the finiteness of the known universe begs the question: "What caused it all?" After all, if the universe were eternal, such a question wouldn't be necessary. But we know that finite things have causes/sources.

I only know of two possibilities. Either an eternal process caused it, or an eternal being.

Belief in an eternal being is a simpler explanation than belief in an eternal process. After all, belief in an eternal being also explains the order found in the universe. Order always comes from intelligence. No exceptions have ever been found.

Something else that Pascal observes is that God has revealed Himself with enough clues in creation to know of His existence, but He also hides Himself enough so that we may sense our unworthiness of Him.

If Creation testifies of this, then this begs the question: What can save us from this condition?

Faith and Creativity

2009-06-16T05:59:00.003-04:00

Have you ever noticed the lack of creativity within the Christian church? Just look at how the average church names itself. Often, they are named after the street name or town/city where they are located.

And I can't tell you how many creative types say that the church has NOT made a home for them. Creative people "think outside the box" and this often makes religious people feel uncomfortable. No wonder the church has a reputation of being boring.

Everything is often so predictable. Even churches that put on a show by adding productional elements, are still so predictable, formulaic and often unimaginative. And please don't get me started on the creativity drought found in Contemporary Christian music.

Why do I suggest that people of faith should value creativity? Is it simply because of my personal bias as a creative type or is there a deeper reason?

Like creativity, doesn't faith require us to use our imaginations and to visualize? A creative sculptor has to visualize what they want to sculpt as they create their art. A musician has to exercise great imagination to create music. When faith tells us that there is a God, a heaven, a hell, does it not require us to do the same?

Secondly, and perhaps a foreign concept to many of us, what is faith if it doesn't challenge us to critical thinking, just like creativity does? No wonder this is a foreign concept. People of faith aren't exactly known for critical thinking. I left a particular Christian denomination years ago because I found that they inherently rejected critical thinking and couldn't provide answers to my questions.

I've watched the church view critical thinking as a threat to core doctrine. But I have always believed that if a doctrine is true, than it can survive all critical thinking as long as our we are objective. I instinctively believe that the truth will withstand all assaults if we are open to it. I don't deny my biases and can't eliminate them, but do everything that I can to minimize them.

Perhaps some of you don't see the connection between critical thinking and creativity. This is best seen via illustration. I teach guitar as an adjunct professor and private instructor. When I give my students a scale, I ask them to question it. I challenge them to ask, "What can possibly be done with this set of notes?" The result of such critical thinking is that they will try ordering the notes of a scale in creative ways that yield all sorts of melodies, phrases and patterns. They end up coming up with things that are new. So, while it is not often said, creativity is directly tied to critical thinking.

A simpler example, that non-musicians can better appreciate, is to take the game of Scrabble. Each player is given seven letters. Success requires the player to question the letters they possess asking, "What words can be formed??" This type of critical thinking will yield the fruits of creativity.

Another reason that everyone, whether religious or not, should value creativity is simply because creativity allows for repetition. I can endure, and even enjoy repetition, if it is done with creativity. I need to remind myself of truths that I have known for years, but if those truths aren't presented to me with the freshness that creativity provides, I'm not going to be able to receive them. A church that can't present old truth creatively, will be challenged to endure boring repetitions and grow stale with traditionalism. The only alternative is for it to find "new truth", which is not exactly an inherent quality within religious faith, and is a back door to heretical teaching.

Something else that is interesting about creativity, is its connection to propositions and systems. In the above two examples, creativity has to be applied to propositions (think black and white). I ask the musician to apply creativity to a scale, which is born out of the system of music theory. The Scrabble player applies creativity to letters to form words.

Christianity echos this truth when it says:

"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." Romans 10:17

"The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." John 1:14

Computers are even examples of this connection. The fruits of digital creativity are found in Youtube, Itunes, MySpace, and even at a more rudimentary level in the graphics of the operating system (GUI for you computer geeks). Yet, all of it boils down to the binary propositions of 0's and 1's (black and white, right and wrong).

So I'm not simply advocating that people of faith should make things up. The creativity that is faith is hinged to the propositions that we commonly call theology and Divine revelation.

So given all of the above, why is it that people of faith so often lack creativity and imagination? I would expect people of faith to have the most profound imaginations. Could this be the consequence of centuries of institutional religion that has produced a top down hierarchy of compliance as opposed to the critical thinking process of considering other's perspectives via the dynamics of a true community?

Have you ever noticed how often Jesus engaged people with questions?

Faith Balances the Extremes

2009-06-01T20:38:00.002-04:00

Faith is belief in moderation, the opposite of extremes, the antithesis of the "one-ended stick".

It is obvious that faith can't exist without belief. Whenever Jesus encountered someone who struggled with belief, He would commonly ask, "Where is your faith"?

But notice that He also never asked, "Where is your certainty?"

Just as faith is impossible without belief, it is equally impossible without the presence of doubt.

If you are absolutely 100% certain of any belief, it can NOT be defined as faith. No one has FAITH that they are going to die. No one has faith that the sun will come up tomorrow (although it IS possible, but extremely unlikely that it will NOT come up).

If faith is a belief that is the mean between doubt and certainty, than it appears to in the middle between two extremes.

So why is it that people of faith so often find themselves at the fringes of life?

If you do NOT have faith, then what are you left with except to believe only in that which can be proven with certainty (which is very little) or with a perpetual skepticism that leaves your mind unhinged.

"Let beliefs fade fast and frequently, if you wish institutions to remain the same. The more the life of the mind is unhinged, the more the machinery of matter will be left to itself." - G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, pg 60.

Such thinking changes nothing, not even its adherent.

I once heard a local pastor say it this way: "If your faith hasn't changed you, then you need to change your faith."

Meaning Without God

2009-05-24T06:16:00.005-04:00

Can one really live a life of meaning without God? What is meaning if it is not purpose? If a purpose maker that transcends the boundaries of our individuality does not exist, then how can the attempt to make up meaning without Him be any less than self-deception; an illusion?

I illustrate with an example. Suppose you say that the meaning of your life is to work a particular vocation that you happen to be good at and derive lots of satisfaction out of (BTW, you'd be the exception and not the norm). That vocation could be anything, but let's say it is to be a police officer, just for sake of illustration.

Why is your life purpose to be a police officer, I might ask?. You might reply, "Because I'm good at it and I enjoy it." "Why do are you good at it and why do you enjoy it?" You might tell me how you are a good shot, and are a natural authority figure, love risk, love serving the community, etc. You might also tell me why you enjoy these things. But WHY are you good at these things and WHY do you enjoy them? Without God, do you really have an answer that goes deeper than evolutionary chance? Why would evolution care? Only beings care... Can the very chair you are most likely sitting in right now care? Can a random process have a purpose, a will, for your life?

If you simply believe in meaning without God because you WANT to believe you live in such a world, then stop asking questions. If you ask too many, they inevitably lead you where you don't want to go.

The Hand of Hope

2009-05-24T06:08:00.003-04:00

In light of pictures like this, I don't see how there can be any doubt as to whether or not abortion is killing.

Perhaps this smacks you in the face because you had an abortion. I'm not throwing stones. There is forgiveness, but it is a forgiveness that only God can give. I certainly don't condemn the remorseful. How could I when I also have sin that begs the same forgiveness?

Now to those who distract us from the truth by arguing choice, murder is a choice, but do you believe society should permit it? Discrimination and prejudice are choices, do you believe society should permit them?

What screams louder?

2009-05-15T22:05:00.002-04:00

C.S. Lewis changed the way that I think. To sum it up, he presents our emotions and longings as being "signposts" which point to truth. Prior to Lewis' interpretation, my instinct was to look at emotions only as an outworking to our world.

Lewis once said that the existence of the stomach was evidence that there also existed something in which it could be filled with. What does this truth tell you about the hole in your heart?

Lewis probably acquired this worldview by G.K. Chesterton. In his book Orthodoxy, he wrote:

The test of all happiness is gratitude; and
I felt grateful, though I hardly knew to whom. Children are grateful when Santa Claus puts in their
stockings gifts of toys or sweets. Could I not be grateful to Santa Claus when he put in my stockings
the gift of two miraculous legs? We thank people for birthday presents of cigars and slippers. Can
I thank no one for the birthday present of birth? Orthdoxy pg 30.

It seems that we have this innate longing to thank, or dare I even say worship, someone outside of ourselves. If this longing goes unfulfilled, we are destined to find life meaningless. This sentiment was acknowledged by OsCar Wilde.

Chesterton writes about this:

Oscar Wilde said that sunsets were not valued because we could not pay for
sunsets. But Oscar Wilde was wrong; we can pay for sunsets. We can pay for them by not being
Oscar Wilde. Orthodoxy pg 32

Like anyone of faith, my doubts sometimes scream at me. But what screams louder is this longing to live for someone bigger than myself.

Why would nature care about our comfort?

2009-05-14T19:27:00.001-04:00

When my wife's grandfather was in Hospice, the Hospice workers told us that right before someone dies, there is a chemical that increases in the body which lessens the pain.

This process begs the question, "Why would this process have evolved, given that evolution is driven by SURVIVAL of the FITTEST"?

An unexamined faith is not worth believing

2009-05-11T17:14:00.002-04:00

If a scientist submitted a new theory, published in a scientific journal, it would certainly be subject to testing and analysis.

Yet, I'm astounded at how many skeptics won't perform the same testing process on religious claims. It is because they misunderstand faith. If faith is believing in something that has absolutely no evidence, then no testing is necessary. This is their mindset. But such a mindset not only misunderstands faith, it is a great excuse for the skeptic and non-religious to bury their heads in the sand.

"An unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates

A belief can be based upon faith but have evidence that supports it. For instance, the probability of my dying in a plane crash is very slim, thus I fly. However, because I can never ultimately know for sure if I'm not on an airplane that will crash, my belief is based upon faith. Even though it is a reasoned belief, reason doesn't obsolve it from being faith.

It is very convenient for the skeptic to divorce faith from reasoning. To do so, gives them a reason to not ask the ultimate question of religion's claims:

"Is it true?"

Before simply dismissing faith as man-made, I ask the skeptic to show me that he/she has examined religion's claims and has a good reason to reject them.

Simply claiming religion is man-made, without demonstrating evidence of such an examination, demonstrates prejudice, not a bold attempt to ask questions no matter where they might lead...

Distracted by meaninglessness, surprised by joy

2009-04-29T20:57:00.002-04:00

Is God merely an invention of the human mind to account for death?

This is a fair and common question.

What is the most certain thing that will happen to every living being on this planet and in the known universe?

Is it not death?

What idea is the most uncertain belief held by the greatest number of people in the known universe?

Is it not God?

What is the vehicle to belief in God if it is not faith? And what is faith if it is not a belief that contains no ounce of doubt? Can someone be a person of faith without also embracing the mystery that comes with doubt?

And what does it mean to embrace mystery, if one doesn't also embrace the very questioning process?

Why is it that people who do NOT believe in God go so far out of their way to avoid thinking about this most obvious and certain thing? Why do the skeptics live their lives embracing any distractions that numb their senses to this one universal certainty?

Is it really in our best interests to only embrace certainty, when the most certain thing is death?

Are our distractions inventions of the human mind to avoid God?

Is it not true that the believer is sure about the most certain thing, and the skeptic most doubtful?

Does it not even follow that the believer is most certain about the most important things in life, while the nonbeliever is only certain about the least important?

I close with excerpts of G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy (pages 91-92):

"The sceptic may truly be said to be topsy-turvy; for his feet are dancing upwards in idle ecstacies, while his brain is in the abyss."

"Christianity satisfies suddenly and perfectly man’s ancestral instinct for being the right way up; satisfies it supremely in this; that by its creed joy becomes something gigantic and sadness something special and small."

"Christianity satisfies suddenly and perfectly man’s ancestral instinct for being the right way up; satisfies it supremely in this; that by its creed joy becomes something gigantic and sadness something special and small."

"We can take our own tears more lightly than we could take the tremendous levities of the angels. So we sit perhaps in a starry chamber of silence, while the laughter of the heavens is too loud for us to hear."

"Joy, which was the small publicity of the pagan, is the gigantic secret of the Christian."

Now, what was the question again? :-)

Life is a highway

2009-04-26T07:47:00.006-04:00

A road system is a curious thing.

We draw lines on them to order traffic. The order that the lines create appears to be arbitrary. As long as the traffic follows this arbitrary order, it will flow smoothly.

So in life, you can't function properly without order (meaning). A religious worldview gives the most comprehensive worldview. I understand that philosophy also gives a worldview, but it has a difficulty being comprehensive because it limits itself to the natural world. Philosophy can say nothing about the most certain event that happens to all of us, which is death.

Some people believe that man can create his own meaning (order) and that everyone can have a different meaning (relativism). But drawing lane lines in any old fashion would create chaos on the roads. And giving each driver a separate set of traffic rules would cause havoc as well.

The stop light systems start and stop traffic at either timed intervals, or sometimes triggered by events (the presence/absence of cars).

Ecclesiastes 3 states that there is a time for everything. There is even a time for going and stopping. Sometimes we can be joyous, and sometimes we mourn. There is a time to laugh and a time to cry.

"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven" - Ecclesiastes 3:1

Speed limits keep the cars in relative unity. Granted, unity is probably more of an unintended consequence, but it does result from restricting speeds to keep driving safer.

And so in life, living a life of integrity and morality cultivates unity. Living a life of monogamy preserves marriages and families. Living a life of honesty preserves relationships of all kinds. Doing justice and giving to the poor and needy among us, keeps all of life's cars from crashing into each other because of otherwise vastly different speeds.

After all, as the song says, "Life is a highway. I want to ride it all night long."

An Answer for Everything, Proves Nothing

2009-04-21T20:45:00.008-04:00

Someone very dear to me has schizophrenia. He thinks that he's living the life of the Truman Show. He believes everyone in the world knows who he is and is watching his every move. He has an answer for everything.

I challenged his view one day by telling him that if he did a Google of his name, he'd be hard pressed to find himself even listed. I proposed that in a world where everyone is watching you and knows your name, a Google search was bound to prove this.

His explanation was simply that God could have manipulated the results of the Google search to hide the truth. We could all even be a part of a conspiracy. His answer was expected. "You have an answer for everything", I replied. The problem with his way of thinking is that there's nothing anyone can say or do to prove or disprove his beliefs.
He proves nothing by answering everything.

The brilliant scientist Stephen Hawking is very ill right now. He has spent much of his life working on a theory to unify Einstein's theory of relativity (which deals with physics on a large scale) with quantum theory (physics on a very small scale). His hope is that this unifying theory will explain everything.

I can't help but wonder, in the light of my schizophrenic friend, whether or not Hawking is looking for a system of truth that is just as insane.

Reading the doctrinal statements of some churches and Christian universities, I wonder if I don't see the same sort of insanity. They seem to have everything in life figured out. Is Christ anything if not a paradox? Does not the Christian see life in Christ's death, power in the cross, strength in His display of weakness and hope in His suffering?

I have always been skeptical of skepticism, but I am now becoming skeptical of any theory that claims to explain everything. I am starting to bring my skepticism of the "too good to be true" product that "slices and dices" to my philosophy.

Perhaps the best worldview of life purposefully leaves room for mystery. Perhaps the healthiest dogma is that which includes faith.

And why would the best worldview leave room for mystery if mystery wasn't the door for worship?

Exhibit A

2009-04-20T07:04:00.004-04:00

Remember when I said that truth is a great book with a bad cover (see "You Can't Judge Truth By Its Cover")? I give you exhibit A:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPZh4AnWyk

Susan Boyle.

How shallow have we become to judge things by the outside instead of the inside? How foolish are we to embrace style over substance?

Why Die On A Cross When We Can Be Good Instead?

2009-04-17T17:23:00.004-04:00

According to the Barna Group, 73% of adults believe that one can earn salvation through good behavior.

Almost half of all born-again Christians believe this as well.

I wish this were the case. I specifically challenge Christians with the following question (for non-christians, this question has too many assumptions).

If all it takes for someone to obtain salvation is to be good, then why would Jesus have bothered dying on a cross? Why wouldn't he have simply come to earth, preached/teached that everyone should be good and then ascended back into heaven?

I Want to Believe

2009-04-02T21:46:00.003-04:00

“Do not seek the because - in love there is no because, no reason, no explanation, no solutions.” - Anias Nin.

As I encourage the questioning process, do I seek reasons in areas where there are none? Anias Nin, was no Christian, but she had a glimpse into the Christian concept of grace. Grace is NOTHING if it can be stood up on the legs of reason.

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast" - Ephesians 2:8-9

I've been reading Pascal's Pensees lately. In it, he argues that there are some things that we know to be true that can't be proven via the reasoning process. Believing tomorrow will come is one example that I remember. Love is another.

I've always believed, against the grain, that faith and reason are supplementary as opposed to the common view that they are antithetical to each other. I've written about this in other postings and therefore won't repeat old ground.

However, in light of the nature of love and grace, I have to ask whether or not I go too far.

Perhaps the skeptics who think they have refuted religious faith, are standing on piles of mud that they have mistaken for gold. They think they have refuted faith by showing that there is no reason to hold it, but in doing so, they are really no different than the delusional person who might say that airplanes can't really fly because everything must be supported by the terrestrial. Perhaps their minds are too earthly. Or perhaps mine is too much in the clouds.

If airplanes operate by different rules when set in motion, despite the fact they are physically heavier than air, wouldn't God do the same?

Perhaps all that we call faith is really a test of our volition.

Perhaps what we believe (and even skepticism is belief) is really the naked exposure of our will.... our heart itself.

I was made for another. I am "otherly".

I want to believe...

Why Faith?

2009-03-29T21:55:00.004-04:00

If there is a God, have you ever asked “Why would He use faith as the channel to relate to Him?” Why wouldn’t he post a huge sign in the Cosmos that was not ignorable? For those of us on the earth, the Sun is a great example.

Imagine that you are extremely rich and famous. What a great dream! Now, imagine that you are searching for true love. How would you ever know if anyone really loved you for who YOU were vs simply loving all that comes along with your wealth and fame?

One way would be for you to hide who you really are.

You might hide your wealth and fame and search for someone who really loved you for who you were, not for what you have.

Christ hid His fame and fortune and came down to earth in a humble manger.

I often see God as someone who appears to be hiding. But He wants us to find Him. He also wants us to love Him for who He is and not because we have no choice.

If God appeared to us as a giant in the sky, we'd be stupid to not at least act like we loved Him.

So He seems to veil Himself in such a way as to give us a fork in the road. That fork gives us two interpretations of life. One is the materialist's worldview that says man is the arbiter of all things. Such a view might even allow for belief in a god, but he/she/it is impersonal (Deism).

The other option is a God that loves us, a God who cares about how we live our lives and wants those lives to be acts of worship.

I'm not here to tell you that one of the two interpretations makes more sense or is more rational than the other.

I'm asking you "Do you want to believe?"

Which came first, intelligence or curiosity?

2009-03-28T08:26:00.001-04:00

Does intelligence cause curiosity or does curiosity cause intelligence?

I don't have all the right answers, just the right questions....

Shortcut for the simple-minded

2009-03-28T07:26:00.002-04:00

I believe very much in rationalism. I believe that it supplements faith in the same way that I could say as a musician, that music theory supplements creativity.

But in music there are musicians who have achieved greatness solely on their creativity and natural talent, devoid of music theory. There are great musicians who are long on creativity but short on musical analysis. Eddie Van Halen is a great example of this.

There is no doubt that the questions that this blog asks are some of the most important questions of life. I ask questions like, "What is this life?", "Why are we here?", "Is there a God?", "Who is God?", "How shall we live?", etc....

This line of questioning inevitably leads us down a complex and intellectual road. Although, we might enjoy this journey if we are intellectually inclined, how do we reconcile the exclusivity of such thought with the universality of these questions?

In other words, if we have discovered that these universal questions many times require more sophisticated, analytical thinking, then what about the exclusion of the simpler minded among us? Have we discovered truth as merely an intellectual, academic exercise?

If knowledge is virtue, than only the highly intelligent among us are virtuous. This is clearly not the case.

If there is a God and this God is a personal, loving God who wants to reveal Himself to us, then it would make sense that He would want to reveal Himself to everyone, regardless of intellectual propensity. How is He doing this?

Perhaps we look with the mind, when we should be looking with our hearts. If our hearts are pure, is there anything we can't see?

Guilt By Association

2009-03-27T21:22:00.002-04:00

Blaise Pascal, in his brilliance as a mathematician, philosopher and scientist, arguably being the forefather of the modern computer, and applying his intellect to his faith as a theologian and Christian, certainly gives us evidence of the nexus between faith and reason that is a constant theme of this blog.

In his Pensees, he states that since our lives here on Earth are clearly transitory and death is eternal, we do ourselves an injustice to be distracted by that which is temporary, failing to focus on eternity.

If this blog is about having the boldness to ask questions, then I would have to add that boldness is necessary to ask questions about eternity. And since, as Pascal has confirmed, death is associated with thoughts on eternity, such questioning is avoided due to a guilt by association.

What are the questions you are afraid to ask?

Casting Doubt on a Miraculous Conspiracy

2009-03-15T09:19:00.002-04:00

In my last blog, I spoke about the existential arguments for God. In this one, I turn to the propositional arguments for God. These arguments point more to WHO God might be.

If we accept the existential arguments for God, then we have to ask who is God? Is God a He, a She or an it? Is God simply everything in the universe or is God separate from creation? (see Why the Earth is Not our Mother)

Is God all powerful and all knowing, or is God limited in some ways? Is God a personal God who cares? Can God be known? Or is God impersonal, more like the force of Star Wars?

Just as technology authenticates science, miracles authenticate prophecy.

E=mc2 was authenticated when the atomic bomb was created.

Knowledge TRULY is power!

I believe in the existence of good and evil. Every axiom can stand when tested against its own claims, so use such a test.

I've read many agnostics/atheists who reject the notion of good and evil. But inevitably, in the same breath even, I find them "preaching" against faith worldviews based on moral grounds. It doesn't take but one Google search to turn up atheists/agnostic/skeptics who reject the existence of evil, claiming that religious worldviews are evil.

Ravi Zacharias (www.rzim.org) tells of a man who held such a view. As Ravi engaged the man in a dialogue following one of his lectures, he asked the man if someone were to take a newborn infant and slice it up, could the man call this act evil. The man replied that he wouldn't like this act, but he could not call it evil.

I would challenge the man to go and find out why he would have such a visceral reaction. Why does such a repulsion exist in our natures and what does it mean?

So if we can agree in the existence of good and evil, then we are left with the question of WHO defines their terms (Does this very posting not demonstrate my aphorism of "Continue to ask "Why?" until you are forced to ask "Who?".)

If man defines the terms, than good and evil are limited by the bounds of a nation's legal system. Exterminating Jews in Nazi Germany was not evil because it was legal. Slavery in antebellum times was legal and therefore not evil or immoral.

In such a world all kinds of atrocities could be justified with the wrong vote.

Good and evil can only transcend the boundaries of nations, cultures and ages if it is defined by God. Only God is transcendent. Everything else dies.

If good and evil are defined by God, then clearly God is good. This is easily established simply by definition. The definition of good is what ought to be. Evil is what ought not to be. In such a world God determines what ought to be.

If good and evil exist and God has declared what ought to be, then this gives us good reason to believe that He is a personal God who actually cares how we treat others. This gives us reason to believe that we are known by Him.

Living in a world of "ought" means we live in a world of purpose. Nothing smells like purpose more than a story. Propositions only tell us what exists, but only a good story tells us why they exist.

Thus I would expect God to be revealing Himself in a story of some kind. Is there any greater story of God's love than the story of Him being born in a manger, living life on earth in the form of a man, teaching, loving, performing miracles, giving His life as a ransom for us all in the name of love and rising again?

But how do I know this story is not a myth? How do I know that men didn't make it up?

This brings us back to authentication. This story was written by multiple authors; Mathew, Mark, Luke & John. If they made these things up, then we are looking at a conspiracy because they share too much agreement. What was their motive?

Was it to sell books, gain money and go on the talk show circuit?

Was it to gain power?

A historical examination of their lives reveals that they suffered and died for their claims.

Why would they willingly give their lives for something they knew not to be true?

While I hear skeptics express their rejections of the Bible, I have never heard one of them explain away what would alternatively have to be nothing less than a miraculous conspiracy.

And in this sense, they have more faith than I do.

This is why I believe....

Existential Argument for God

2009-02-14T06:16:00.005-05:00

In my last blog, I discussed the convergence of faith and reason. If you think the two are mutually exclusive, you will want to read it before proceeding.

The reasons for my Christian faith fall into two categories; existential and propositional.

The existential arguments for God appeal to our longings, our human nature, our needs. These arguments views these things as "signposts" pointing to the existence of God. C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton before him provide excellent existential arguments for God.

C.S. Lewis wrote:
"Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism." --The Abolition of Man

Check your motives. If you are an emotionally unhealthy person, you are a likely candidate for NOT getting the truth right. Our emotions filter (bias) how we see the world.

Lewis also stated:
"For me, reason is the natural organ of truth, and imagination is the organ of understanding."

The existential arguments for God are broad. They do more to tell us of His existence than who He might be.
The propositional arguments for God are more specific and go farther in that they attempt to tell us WHICH God and WHO he may be. It is at this propositional level that I come to believe in the Christian God.

Today, I will attempt to present some existential arguments for God. In my next blog, I will present the propositional arguments for a Christian God.

There is a song by the band "Extreme" called "Hole Hearted". In it, they speak of the universal longing that we all have when they say, "There's a hole in my heart and it only can be filled by you." The song is likely talking about a romantic relationship. It is interesting that the landscape of music, as well as the rest of the modern arts, is dominated by romantic and sensual longings. Is there anything in this life that really satisfies these desires?

Feminist writer Anias Nin (NOTE: not a traditional religious type) once wrote:
"Ordinary life does not interest me. I seek only the high moments. I am in accord with the surrealists, searching for the marvelous." Winter, 1931-1932 from The Diary of Anaïs Nin, Volume One 1931-1934

She also wrote:
"I am an excitable person who only understands life lyrically, musically, in whom feelings are much stronger as reason. I am so thirsty for the marvelous that only the marvelous has power over me. Anything I can not transform into something marvelous, I let go. Reality doesn't impress me. I only believe in intoxication, in ecstasy, and when ordinary life shackles me, I escape, one way or another. No more walls." July 7, 1934 from incest, from a journal of love

Nin expresses what I believe to be a human truth. We all long for something or someone to fill a God shaped hole. Everyone tries to fill it in different ways including romantic relationships, sensuality, drugs and alcohol, hobbies, friendships, family and children, materialism and more...

One of the best illustrations that I remember C.S. Lewis used to illustrate the truths of these "signposts" was regarding the stomach. He observed that just as the stomach's need to be filled with food was evidence that food exists, so the heart's need to be filled is proof that there is something that exists which can fill it.

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." - C.S. Lewis
--Mere Christianity

Elvis Presley had it all. He had fame, wealth, talent. He once stated that he had lived every dream that he had ever had a thousand times. Yet he died a premature death, addicted to pain killers. What pain was he trying to kill? If HE couldn't fill this hole in his heart, then how can anyone who has less?

Belief in God gives life purpose. The ultimate expression of this purpose is to enjoy God's presence. This is what Christianity calls worship. Worship is the ecstasy that Anias Nin sought. It is the culmination of every romantic desire. It is the thirst that drives us to seek the thrill, once obtained, is gone just as quickly.

"I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation." -- C.S. Lewis in "Reflections on the Psalms"

Lewis calls it Joy. Lewis was a confirmed bachelor (or so he thought). One of the books that he wrote was entitled "Surprised By Joy". Later in his life, he was pleasantly surprised to find that he had fallen in love. He married this woman who just so happened to be named Joy.

" it is that of an unsatisfied desire which is itself more desirable than any other satisfaction. I call it Joy... Joy (in my sense) has indeed one characteristic... in common with them; the fact that anyone who has experienced it will want it again." [Surprised By Joy 17-18]

But Lewis' first encounter with what he calls "Joy" was when he was a little boy. His brother had built a toy garden. When he saw the garden, he wrote: "It made me aware of nature--not, indeed, as a storehouse of forms and colors but as something cool, dewy, fresh, exuberant. . . . As long as I live my imagination of Paradise will retain something of my brother's toy garden."

He went on to say later in his life: "It is difficult to find words strong enough for the sensation which came over me; Milton's 'enormous bliss' of Eden . . . comes somewhere near it,"

Do you find yourself trying to feed a hole in your heart? What do you try to feed "the monster" with? Do you try to feed it with the things the band Extreme wrote about in another song entitled, "Its a Monster"?

"It's on my mind most of the time
That's when you find we all go blind
Then it will start to get in our hearts
It's gone too far, that's who we are
It's a monster
We all have within us
It's a monster
It's a monster
Turns us into sinners
It's a monster"

Augustine called this longing "The God Shaped Hole". If it is God shaped, then only He can fill it. But who is this God that we long for? We'll explore that question in the next posting.

The Convergence of Faith and Reason

2009-02-14T05:49:00.001-05:00

I am finding that a lot of people, religious as well as non-religious, seem to believe that faith and reason do not intersect. But if we just use reason alone, we will find that this assumption breaks down.

Mankind is finite. We are limited in what we know. We are limited in what we CAN know. For instance, there are things so far out in space, that no telescope or device will be able to observe, measure or detect. So reason alone says that there are things that exist outside of the reaches of empiricism.

I do understand that there are some people who have a rare philosophy that says that only that which we can observe and experience is real. Such a philosophy goes so far as to say that when a refrigerator door is shut, its contents cease to exist. There are many arguments against such a philosophy. I shall not expound on them, but only say that I think this philosophy says more about the limits of empiricism, than the limits of reality/truth.

So if we acknowledge that there are things that exist outside of our ability to observe and measure, than we have already seen a glimpse into the validity of faith.

But I can take faith even further. EVERYONE has faith. When you get in a car to go somewhere, can you absolutely 100% KNOW that you will arrive safely at your destination? Of course not. But do you BELIEVE you will arrive safely? If not, I don't think you'd get in the car in the first place. THAT is faith.

What if you were to get into the passenger seat of that car and let a drunk person drive you? That would be crazy wouldn't it? But do you absolutely KNOW that the drunk will have an accident? No, but the odds are against them driving safely. It is reasonable to conclude that you would be unsafe to ride with the drunk. But because you can't KNOW this for sure, you have faith. More specifically, you have a reasoned faith. You have a faith informed by rational thought. Your faith is informed by probability.

I could give many many more analogies that demonstrate this convergence of faith and reason. Every time we plan for the future, we "roll the dice" based on the probability that we will live for that future event. We have no proof so we have faith instead. That faith is backed up by reason. Interviewing for a job requires faith. But you wouldn't do it if you didn't have reason to believe you could get the position.

These examples are different than blind faith. Many religions do seem to advocate a blind faith. For instance, Hinduism and Buddhism claim reincarnation, but outside of some people's deja vu experiences, and subjective interpretations of nature, they don't offer any rational argument to support these claims. Most other religions have the same problem.

This is why I am a Christian. Christianity is different in this regard. Its cornerstone is the claim that Jesus Christ died and rose again. It could just make these claims (blind faith) and offer nothing more. Instead, it presents to us multiple witnesses to these claims who wrote the Gospels. These writers were so convinced of Christ's resurrection that they died for this belief.

Yes, it is true that many religious people die for their beliefs, but if you are thinking this, you have missed the point. These writers weren't just ANY group of religious people. They had the unique ability to validate their claims. All they had to do was go to the grave and see if Christ was there. All the Roman government had to do to stifle Christianity's threat to its empire was to produce Christ's body.

Why didn't this occur?

Yes, I have faith, but it is NOT a blind faith. It is a faith that is supported by reason. While I can't absolutely prove 100% these things, if I could it would NOT be faith. But because my faith is supported by a reasonable argument, it is not a blind faith.

What is your faith? Why do you believe it? If you merely believe in it because it makes you feel good, or out of fear, or because it serves you, you believe for the wrong reasons. And please don't think that I'm pointing a finger at you. These are questions that I ask myself.

There are other reasons that I believe as well. I will discuss those in my next two blogs.

If you've read this far and still do not see the convergence of faith and reason, I point you to Google on the subject of Christian Apologetics. Christian apologetics is an attempt by Christians to defend their faith using reason. If this convergence that I speak of does NOT exist, then neither would the apologist.

In every instance that I have EVER encountered someone who didn't understand this convergence, I have found that the dissenter was not aware of apologetics, or had not listened/read such arguments.

I close with this thought. If I were opposed to Christianity, wouldn't the most effective way for me to prevent its spread be for me to cast it as a faith that throws out the brain?

Socrates once said that the unexamined life is not worth living.

If I wanted to bury my head in the sand when it comes to questions regarding the meaning of life, the existence of God, how I should live my life, etc., would I find any better way to do this than to simply dismiss all religious people as holding to a blind faith?

Which takes MORE blind faith; to examine the reasons for believing or to simply dismiss them all as having blind faith?

Often our rejections of dogma, are dogmatic, our objections to zealotry are zealous, and our abstinence of intolerance is intolerant....

Faith to the Rescue

2009-02-10T21:11:00.001-05:00

If a tree falls in the forest and no wife is around, is the husband still wrong?

But seriously...

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it still make a sound? This is a classic philosophical question. The question deals with epistemology (how we come to know anything) and ontology (what the world is).

But is this the right question? I suggest the following question:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, have we come to the end of logic's reach?

I believe in logic. But I believe it has limits. I have noticed that when most people observe that a position can't be proven logically, they assume the position to be false. But there is a second option. The position is true, but is beyond reason's reach.

I believe that the tree does make a sound if sound is defined simply as creating air waves that have the POTENTIAL to vibrate an ear drum or be picked up by a listening device if it WERE around. But I can't prove this. I can only suggest that such a world is a simpler world than one where we imagine that events revolve around us. This claim is beyond reason's reach.

A world where sound only occurs when an ear drum (or now a recording device as well) is present, is WAY too complex of a world and thus violates Occam's razor, otherwise known as "Keep It Simple Stupid".

This question shows the limitations of reason.

Faith marches in to the rescue. But I don't let it march in blindly. This is why Occam's razor is my guide when I'm presented with the "fork in the road" choices for my answer, both of which take faith to believe.

G.K. Chesterton, in his book Orthodoxy, says the above differently. Here is an excerpt from his classic book:

THE real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. Life is not an illogicality; yet it is a trap for logicians. It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait. I give one coarse instance of what I mean. Suppose some mathematical creature from the moon were to reckon up the human body; he would at once see that the essential thing about it was that it was duplicate. A man is two men, he on the right exactly resembling him on the left. Having noted that there was an arm on the right and one on the left, a leg on the right and one on the left, he might go further and still find on each side the same number of fingers, the same number of toes, twin eyes, twin ears, twin nostrils, and even twin lobes of the brain. At last he would take it as a law; and then, where he found a heart on one side, would deduce that there was another heart on the other. And just then, where he most felt he was right, he would be wrong. - Orthodoxy, pg 46

Chesterton goes on to say:

Now, this is exactly the claim which I have since come to propound for Christianity. Not merely that it deduces logical truths, but that when it suddenly becomes illogical, it has found, so to speak, an illogical truth. It not only goes right about things, but it goes wrong (if one may say so) exactly where the things go wrong. Its plan suits the secret irregularities, and expects the unexpected. - Orthodoxy, pg 46

I often hear skeptics accuse religious folks of being irrational. Such a skeptic gives too much power to reason. Reason has its place. It can reveal falsehood by revealing inconsistency. But it can NOT guarantee truth. One can be logical and be wrong. One can win the debate and lose truth. I'm not proposing we throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because a car can't drive me to the moon doesn't mean that it's not a useful mode of transportation.

But perhaps, when it comes to the deepest questions of life, we are satisfied too easily with a rational worldview. Truth is stranger than fiction. Shouldn't our worldview be a reflection of this?

You Can't Judge the Truth by its Cover

2009-01-30T17:13:00.001-05:00

The truth is like a great book with a bad cover. It is easy to see, but not easy to understand.

It’s like a great leader who is a bad communicator.

It’s like a great product with bad marketing.

It’s like a great weatherman with bad hair, a great movie with bad actors, a great joke heard out of context, gold in a pig’s snout, a Stradivarius in the hands of a novice, a treasured vase in the hands of a toddler, profound prose in the ears of kindergarteners…

Sorry, but I was on a roll.

I’m always telling my readers to ask “what” until you get to “why” and to ask “why” until you get to “who”. The problem with truth is it is so easily misunderstood because so many people have this proclivity to not dig deep enough for it.
This is especially problematic living in a media culture that thrives on the three-second sound bite.

If you reads my recent posting entitled, “Partisan Convergence and Just War Theory”, you have been exposed to a position that justifies war which can be easily misunderstood on the surface, to be one that is advocated by war-mongers. After all, such a lie fits in the sound bite. Look how long of a posting it took me to explain the position at a deeper level. And notice that at a deeper level, the position’s motivations are 180 degrees in the opposite direction.

So what is to be done? Isn’t the best method of persuasion to be found in the form of a question? Which makes us think more, spoon-fed answers or questions?

Although it is tempting to help a bird hatchling out of its egg, doing so ensures its death. It actually builds the critical strength needed to survive through the struggle. I guess truth looks like a baby bird neglector as well.