?Two things just came up in my mind: one is the secular idea of God as the Magic 8 Ball who we just go to for the hard questions so we don't have to deal with them (like God as the Prayer Vendor Machine or the less mechanic, more paternal, but euphemistic "Sky Daddy"?
Thinking of God as a ?magic 8 Ball? is a danger. What exactly is the problem with it? For starters, it is claiming to know more than is justified.
Whenever someone says, ?God told me that you are supposed to _____________,? I think we should be suspicious that this person thinks she knows more than she actually knows. I had a college acquaintance who used to say things like this. Then one time she told a friend of mine, ?God told me he is going to get me a red truck.? Within a few days, she got a yellow Toyota Corolla, and praised God for following through on his promise. Actually, she made God out to be a liar to save her false claim to knowledge. She should have said, ?God promised to provide for me; praise God, he provided.?
Add to this inappropriate claim to knowledge the use of such knowledge to explain the things around us, and we have the 8-Ball problem. We are officially using God as a way to fill the gaps in our understanding. For example: ?There are gaps in the fossil record, therefore God made the world.? The two claims may both be true, but the logic is bad (it is magic 8-ball logic). There are a lot of examples of this kind of logic used by Christians, and you are right to point out that they are bad arguments.
Why do people do this? Is it because we don?t like the uncertainty of not knowing exactly how God is going to provide for our needs, so we try to force him to be specific? Or in the case of the arguments against evolution, maybe it is the drive to claim explanatory territory?here is something science has not explained yet, so let?s claim it for God? My personal feeling is that the real reason is that we are intimidated by the idea that we would ever have to say something like, ?I have no idea, but I know God is trustworthy.? It seems weak, and we fear non-Christians will seize on it as evidence that we are wrong more generally. We so zealously want to defend God that we fill in details when we should really rest in the comfort of knowing God?s goodness and trustworthiness. So 8-ball reasoning is really a problem.
On the other hand, we are right to trust something that is trustworthy. In fact, we find that we can?t really operate in this world unless we do so. Do you doubt that what you read ten seconds ago is really what you read ten seconds ago? Of course not?you trust your memory, because, so far as you remember, it has been trustworthy in the past.
Our trust in something should be in harmony with the nature of the thing, and should be expressed in the way appropriate to that thing. I trust a chair to hold me because it held someone roughly my weight a few minutes ago. I don?t trust a chair to be a helpful weapon against an intruder. Likewise, I trust a chair to hold me because it held someone roughly my weight, but I shouldn?t claim to know that it will hold up to 373.5 pounds at sea level at 39% humidity (but no more).
Our trust in ?technology? is a lot like our trust in God.
We can blindly trust in ?science? or ?technology? to get us out of our economic, environmental, and social problems, or we can appreciate technology for what it is (a way of harnessing the universe for our own benefit). But technology always brings secret side-effects, i.e., unintended consequences no one told us about ahead of time (because no one knew), for which we need?more technology.
Blindly thinking we know that technology will help us out of our problems is a magic 8-ball way of thinking, it seems to me. Now go to your average mall or Wal-Mart and start surveying the people, and what percentage do you think will ?believe? in it? Probably about 100. Survey yourself, and then survey me, and the percentage probably has not changed. Note that there is not a shred of evidence in favor of the hypothesis that ?technology will get us out of our economic, environmental, and social problems.? Has it done this in the past? Do we have more or less of these problems since, say, the advent of nuclear technology? Or the television? Or the automobile? (Etc.) Not that we would ever go back if we had the choice, but that only shows how much we love and appreciate the true blessings of technology, not that it is able to answer these problems.
Technology is a good example because we all have faith in its ability to help us. But it is also a good example because of how easily it leads us astray. How? The obvious answer seems to be that its enormous success in one area (nature actually works according to regularities that can be predicted and harnessed) has led us to put our faith in it in other areas. As a logical strategy this is not a bad method, so long as there are compelling reasons to draw the analogy. But if there are not then it becomes an exercise in the fallacy of false authority, and can easily beguile us when used in an 8-ball argument.
But now let?s get back to using God as a magic 8-ball. We had a justifiable faith in the advancement of technology, but when we apply it to the areas of ethics or social advancement it is not nearly so obviously justified. What about our faith in God? Are we reasonable to see his work in one area, and then to infer that he is also working in another area? If so, it is not example of 8-ball thinking, but a justified application of the goodness of God. When I claim to know more about the details of God?s goodness than I am justified in knowing, I do a disservice to the witness of God?I am claiming that God is going to give me a red truck.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Truth, Reality, Atheism
We all experience the fundamental reality of the world itself, regardless of our truth claims, and regardless of whether we are atheists or not or thoughtful or not. Slaughtering innocents is repulsive to us because we are made in God's image. Suppose someone were to say, "No, that is how we evolved." Fine, but then there is no compelling reason to embrace the repulsion now, since we have "evolved" into reflective beings who are able to overcome such repulsions through reason. This leads to the problem of inconsistency, not for the Christian (our ?problem? is mystery, not inconsistency), but for the atheist, who wants to say that slaughtering innocents is ?wrong,? but knows that evolution cannot support such a claim. The inconsistency itself is not a problem for the atheist, because inconsistency is not evolutionarily bad; but on the other hand it is a problem, because to make an argument is to claim consistency. ?But evolution is true!? Again, where is the concept of truth for the atheistic evolutionist? It has value only insofar as it helps us to survive, but there are plenty of falsehoods that can help just as much or more than the truth does, so the concept of truth cannot be a virtue to the atheist, and to argue for it is disingenuous.
Hell?s tentacles and the idea of morality without an afterlife
Questions:
"if there was no afterlife, would that be an end to a/the BASIS for morality and accountability in life? Why/how (not)?...And by afterlife, I am specifically referring to the free will choices of Heaven and Hell (maybe Purgatory if you're Catholic)?Of course materialist might argue we are/should be accountable for our actions on earth while we live on it since they believe this is the only life we have...And how do they justify it?"
What could be the basis for a morality outside of a worldview that believes in an afterlife (at which time injustices will be settled)? It could come from the universe itself in something like karma, or it could come from humans. It is hard to see how impersonal forces (such as karma) can hold us accountable (Lewis has some good words on this), and we don?t meet all that many people who believe it. That being said, since I have moved to California I have talked with a number of people in various businesses (as I was shopping) who have mentioned karma or something like it, in passing?the idea is definitely not dead.
Among the thought lives of those you are thinking of, there are two poles of the human origin of morality: the individual and society. The first one is raw egoism: what I say goes. The idea that society creates moral principles and trains its members up in them through the evolutionary process and through social training is much more sophisticated and attractive, but no less empty. What prevents a whole society from deciding that the weak members must be eliminated (such as in Nazi Germany)? Was there a rational justification of what they did, from an evolutionary perspective that posits society as the origin of morality? Of course there is. But this answer is unacceptable to most of us. Many of us will hold our rejection of this conclusion more strongly than the principles that led to the conclusion, and consequently will reject the principles (premises) (these principles would include the atheistic form of evolution).
Let?s look from another angle. If this world holds the only justice that there will ever be, then there is no justice. Period. Not just many, but the vast majority of wrongs are not directly accounted for in this life.
Even as we say that, there is another side to it for the Christian. Imagine Lewis was right when he said that this world, for those who end up going to Heaven, will have been a prelude to heaven. If so, then all the beauty of this world will be seen and remembered for its participation in true beauty, and all the ugliness will be fit into its proper place as well, that is, the place God had for it as part of all those things that work together for our own eternal good?the dark threads the weaver weaves into the beauty of his work. We will look back on it with deep appreciation.
On the other hand, for those who end up in Hell, this world will have turned out to be a pre-extension of its ugliness, Hell itself extending its tentacles into every nerve ending of this life. The ugliness of this world will be seen in its fullness and will increase the misery of the empty existence that hell will be. But far worse will be the beauty of this world. Just think about who is more miserable: Priam?s grandson, thrown from the walls of Troy, or King Priam himself, father of fifty great warriors, all slain by Achilles; his wife and daughters taken and ravaged, his city, the greatest city there was, utterly destroyed; Athena?s temple defiled. And all before his eyes. The greater the glory, the greater the misery when it is lost. Those who have known the great beauty of God?s creation more profoundly (whether it be the scientist, who sees it in his observations, or the artist who sees it in her art, or the lover in his beloved) will be the more miserable for having known it.
From this perspective, there most certainly is justice, not only in the world to come, but in this world as well. Here is Plato as well. When we are unjust, we defile our own souls. The more unjust we are, the more defiled. The sickest, ugliest, nastiest soul is the absolute tyrant (such as Hitler or Stalin), who was above rebuke, whose whim was the death of millions. Here is a soul so sick as to be almost unrecognizable as human. The image of God is all but wiped clean from it, the last and smallest traces longing for the death of the body so that they can escape the flames and return to the glory in which they belong.
Here, justice is built into the nature of life. But this kind of justice short-circuits the atheist's worldview. It is there, but it cannot be accounted for.
"if there was no afterlife, would that be an end to a/the BASIS for morality and accountability in life? Why/how (not)?...And by afterlife, I am specifically referring to the free will choices of Heaven and Hell (maybe Purgatory if you're Catholic)?Of course materialist might argue we are/should be accountable for our actions on earth while we live on it since they believe this is the only life we have...And how do they justify it?"
What could be the basis for a morality outside of a worldview that believes in an afterlife (at which time injustices will be settled)? It could come from the universe itself in something like karma, or it could come from humans. It is hard to see how impersonal forces (such as karma) can hold us accountable (Lewis has some good words on this), and we don?t meet all that many people who believe it. That being said, since I have moved to California I have talked with a number of people in various businesses (as I was shopping) who have mentioned karma or something like it, in passing?the idea is definitely not dead.
Among the thought lives of those you are thinking of, there are two poles of the human origin of morality: the individual and society. The first one is raw egoism: what I say goes. The idea that society creates moral principles and trains its members up in them through the evolutionary process and through social training is much more sophisticated and attractive, but no less empty. What prevents a whole society from deciding that the weak members must be eliminated (such as in Nazi Germany)? Was there a rational justification of what they did, from an evolutionary perspective that posits society as the origin of morality? Of course there is. But this answer is unacceptable to most of us. Many of us will hold our rejection of this conclusion more strongly than the principles that led to the conclusion, and consequently will reject the principles (premises) (these principles would include the atheistic form of evolution).
Let?s look from another angle. If this world holds the only justice that there will ever be, then there is no justice. Period. Not just many, but the vast majority of wrongs are not directly accounted for in this life.
Even as we say that, there is another side to it for the Christian. Imagine Lewis was right when he said that this world, for those who end up going to Heaven, will have been a prelude to heaven. If so, then all the beauty of this world will be seen and remembered for its participation in true beauty, and all the ugliness will be fit into its proper place as well, that is, the place God had for it as part of all those things that work together for our own eternal good?the dark threads the weaver weaves into the beauty of his work. We will look back on it with deep appreciation.
On the other hand, for those who end up in Hell, this world will have turned out to be a pre-extension of its ugliness, Hell itself extending its tentacles into every nerve ending of this life. The ugliness of this world will be seen in its fullness and will increase the misery of the empty existence that hell will be. But far worse will be the beauty of this world. Just think about who is more miserable: Priam?s grandson, thrown from the walls of Troy, or King Priam himself, father of fifty great warriors, all slain by Achilles; his wife and daughters taken and ravaged, his city, the greatest city there was, utterly destroyed; Athena?s temple defiled. And all before his eyes. The greater the glory, the greater the misery when it is lost. Those who have known the great beauty of God?s creation more profoundly (whether it be the scientist, who sees it in his observations, or the artist who sees it in her art, or the lover in his beloved) will be the more miserable for having known it.
From this perspective, there most certainly is justice, not only in the world to come, but in this world as well. Here is Plato as well. When we are unjust, we defile our own souls. The more unjust we are, the more defiled. The sickest, ugliest, nastiest soul is the absolute tyrant (such as Hitler or Stalin), who was above rebuke, whose whim was the death of millions. Here is a soul so sick as to be almost unrecognizable as human. The image of God is all but wiped clean from it, the last and smallest traces longing for the death of the body so that they can escape the flames and return to the glory in which they belong.
Here, justice is built into the nature of life. But this kind of justice short-circuits the atheist's worldview. It is there, but it cannot be accounted for.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Persecution as Corroborating Evidence
“Lastly, even if Christians have suffered and have been persecuted almost more than any other peoples, how is this evidence of it being true and having absolute Truth and morality?"
Distinguish between corroborating evidence and proof. The one (corroborating evidence) gives support to a claim, the other is a claim to certainty. The rumbling of the ground lends support to the claim that the enemy cavalry is approaching, but also to the claim that there is an earthquake. More evidence will further corroborate one or the other, and at some point (when you can see the cavalry), counter-claims become ridiculous. I do believe that we (Christians) have a claim to certainty, but it is not by virtue of the fact that our spiritual ancestors and we have been persecuted (that claim would prove too much—every persecuted group could then claim this as final evidence of their respective truth-claims); and our certainty may not be a form that is communicable anyway.
Distinguish between corroborating evidence and proof. The one (corroborating evidence) gives support to a claim, the other is a claim to certainty. The rumbling of the ground lends support to the claim that the enemy cavalry is approaching, but also to the claim that there is an earthquake. More evidence will further corroborate one or the other, and at some point (when you can see the cavalry), counter-claims become ridiculous. I do believe that we (Christians) have a claim to certainty, but it is not by virtue of the fact that our spiritual ancestors and we have been persecuted (that claim would prove too much—every persecuted group could then claim this as final evidence of their respective truth-claims); and our certainty may not be a form that is communicable anyway.
On "Fundamentalism"
“Some atheists say that "fundamentalist" is an inaccurate label for them b/c they a fundamentalist is by definition a person who believes in something or someone, and therefore since atheists don't believe in any God(s) they cannot be fundamentalists. Is this an accurate definition/description?”
Not quite. Literally, a fundamentalist is someone who believes in the fundamentals of something. Historically, this label was claimed by some who believed in certain “fundamentals” of the Christian faith (such as inerrancy). Later, it was attached to a certain brand of Christians, and now is associated with the “don’t drink don’t smoke don’t chew don’t go with girls who do” type mindset. Also with judgmentalism. This is why I don’t associate myself with the word as it is used today. The original idea, as well as the meaning of the word more generally, is not quite so juicy.
But imagine how fun it would be to play on these two uses of the word with a Christian opponent (if you were the non-Christian). A strawman, sure; equivocation, yes; but too entertaining to pass up. At least that is how I would feel if I had no restraints of Christian morality.
Or it could be that a person simply doesn’t know that there are very different uses of the world—most Christians don’t, and it is our own history.
Now apply it to the discussion and the non-Christian. If he associates the word with the present historical use, or the original historical use, of course he cannot be a fundamentalist, because it describes a group of Christians.
But taken more generally to mean, “accepts certain fundamentals of worldview x by faith,” he not only can be one, but necessarily is one (assuming you accept the argument for this contention that we entertained earlier).
That being said, I would try to avoid fixating on the word, and if the person to whom you were talking is willing, you can move on to concepts and avoid using words that don’t seem to stay put very well.
Not quite. Literally, a fundamentalist is someone who believes in the fundamentals of something. Historically, this label was claimed by some who believed in certain “fundamentals” of the Christian faith (such as inerrancy). Later, it was attached to a certain brand of Christians, and now is associated with the “don’t drink don’t smoke don’t chew don’t go with girls who do” type mindset. Also with judgmentalism. This is why I don’t associate myself with the word as it is used today. The original idea, as well as the meaning of the word more generally, is not quite so juicy.
But imagine how fun it would be to play on these two uses of the word with a Christian opponent (if you were the non-Christian). A strawman, sure; equivocation, yes; but too entertaining to pass up. At least that is how I would feel if I had no restraints of Christian morality.
Or it could be that a person simply doesn’t know that there are very different uses of the world—most Christians don’t, and it is our own history.
Now apply it to the discussion and the non-Christian. If he associates the word with the present historical use, or the original historical use, of course he cannot be a fundamentalist, because it describes a group of Christians.
But taken more generally to mean, “accepts certain fundamentals of worldview x by faith,” he not only can be one, but necessarily is one (assuming you accept the argument for this contention that we entertained earlier).
That being said, I would try to avoid fixating on the word, and if the person to whom you were talking is willing, you can move on to concepts and avoid using words that don’t seem to stay put very well.
On "Defending" the Triune God
“How do I respond to non-believers who accuse Christians of accepting cut-and-dry answers to Scripture like a Triune God and Heave n and Hell?”
God is love. Love is relational. Our understanding of true love comes from the relationship of the Holy Trinity. We (all humans) were made in the image of God, and as such we naturally imitate the love of the Triune God. But we do it imperfectly, due to the our fallenness, so not only do we naturally live in love, we also have the emptiness of not living in the love which is inherent to our nature. So the best way to respond to the non-believer who thinks our view of the Triune God is too simplistic might not be to tell them more about him, but to show him that which he longs for in his own nature but cannot quite grasp: God’s love in relationship. It would be like listening to a really good piece of music, instead of being told how good the music is and why it is so good.
As for the part about Heaven and Hell: show them how heaven reaches back to earth through God’s people (you and your kindness). The hell part won’t need more demonstration.
Of course the common question is, “How do I defend the things in the Bible that seem absurd to the non-Christian?” Here you need to come at it from several directions at once: 1) The direction described above (the way of love); 2) Answer the question directly as much as you are able to; 3) Remember that we are dealing with systems, not just individual points. Which system best explains things of the world? 4) Point out that every thought system has truth-claims that seem absurd from alternate approaches.
God is love. Love is relational. Our understanding of true love comes from the relationship of the Holy Trinity. We (all humans) were made in the image of God, and as such we naturally imitate the love of the Triune God. But we do it imperfectly, due to the our fallenness, so not only do we naturally live in love, we also have the emptiness of not living in the love which is inherent to our nature. So the best way to respond to the non-believer who thinks our view of the Triune God is too simplistic might not be to tell them more about him, but to show him that which he longs for in his own nature but cannot quite grasp: God’s love in relationship. It would be like listening to a really good piece of music, instead of being told how good the music is and why it is so good.
As for the part about Heaven and Hell: show them how heaven reaches back to earth through God’s people (you and your kindness). The hell part won’t need more demonstration.
Of course the common question is, “How do I defend the things in the Bible that seem absurd to the non-Christian?” Here you need to come at it from several directions at once: 1) The direction described above (the way of love); 2) Answer the question directly as much as you are able to; 3) Remember that we are dealing with systems, not just individual points. Which system best explains things of the world? 4) Point out that every thought system has truth-claims that seem absurd from alternate approaches.
Friday, February 6, 2009
On Dates in the Bible
Hey Will,
Why is the exact and day, month and year date of the creation of the world, Jesus' birth, crucifixion, death and resurrection not recorded in the Bible when so many other events in history have dates recorded- like Julius Caesar's assassination on the Ides of March? How and why will people believe and what will make them believe in the Biblical events even when the exact dates are not recorded? Are there other events in history that do not have an exact or vague recording?"
Why would it be desirable to have the exact dates? Would that make them more believable? We know pretty precisely when they were, and even when the NT documents were written. I am just not sure how more precision in dating would increase their believability. You can think of examples of when something is precisely dated but is fabricated (read the preface or intro to the novel, The Name of the Rose for a brilliant example of creating an illusion through historical "precision"), or of countless historical events that are dated after the fact but not during.
Why is the exact and day, month and year date of the creation of the world, Jesus' birth, crucifixion, death and resurrection not recorded in the Bible when so many other events in history have dates recorded- like Julius Caesar's assassination on the Ides of March? How and why will people believe and what will make them believe in the Biblical events even when the exact dates are not recorded? Are there other events in history that do not have an exact or vague recording?"
Why would it be desirable to have the exact dates? Would that make them more believable? We know pretty precisely when they were, and even when the NT documents were written. I am just not sure how more precision in dating would increase their believability. You can think of examples of when something is precisely dated but is fabricated (read the preface or intro to the novel, The Name of the Rose for a brilliant example of creating an illusion through historical "precision"), or of countless historical events that are dated after the fact but not during.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)