Earnestness

But just as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in your love for us —see that you also excel in this grace of giving. -2 Corinthians 8:7

I’ve often been told that I take life too seriously. I find myself fluctuating between two extremes: complete indifference, or complete earnestness. Which makes more sense? I’m tired of the indifference. I feel like I was brought there against my will, by a society that cares for nothing. It’s a wretched existence that I can’t afford.

Let’s live for something.
Andrew

Insanity

I’ve discovered that the Atheist / Christian debate has nothing to do with logic, reason, or any other derivation of human thought. It’s entirely, and simply, about antithesis. It consists of themes. Most notably evolution, and entropy, as observed in my last dialogue.

I need time to think about the insanity of this world. It may be a while before I return to my dialogues. But does it really matter, if all it amounts to is antithesis?

Atheist/Christian Dialogue 3: Historical Antithesis

Here’s another.

Atheist: The trouble with Christianity is that hope is based in something that can’t be observed or tested.
Christian: So science can be observed and tested?
Atheist: Well we can observe and test things scientifically.
Christian: You do realize that that isn’t good reason to have hope, right?
Atheist: Well science is constantly progressing-
Christian: And being used in all sorts of new horrific ways!
Atheist: But there is good too!
Christian: Why should the good ultimately win out?
Atheist: Well if you look at history…
Christian: What about history? Nearly every major civilization has ended, collapsing from the inside due to corruption, or being destroyed by another civilization.
Atheist: But we survive, and continue to progress!
Christian: And continue to destroy one another, and quarrel over every problem.
Atheist: Well I still think humanity will prevail.
Christian: I guess that makes the source of your hope as untestable and unobservable as mine then. The only difference is that your hope is rooted in human nature, which proves fickle, mine is in God, Who proves consistent.
Atheist: Except that the God you’re describing, the God depicted in the bible is evil, and invisible, so what does it matter?
Christian: I seriously question the accuracy of that statement.
Atheist: Look at how He sent the Israelites around annihilating other civilizations!
Christian: Because they were corrupt.
Atheist: But look at how He afflicted Job, His great servant, with all kinds of ailments!
Christian: To test him, and help him become more godly.
Atheist: But why would he do that? Doesn’t He care about Job? What kind of a parent tortures His children!?
Christian: A parent who is more concerned with the long term benefits of conquering the evil nature inside of them, then with their temporary happiness.
Atheist: But why not just supernaturally heal Job of his evil?
Christian: Because Job would get no credit.
Atheist: Does that really matter? Why not just have the best world for everyone? A world where nobody suffers?
Christian: A best world ultimately driven by hedonism? A best world where immediate gratification rules the day? That’s the reality we’re already in, and look where it got us.
Atheist: But what about when God sent out the Hebrews to kill thousands of their own people!
Christian: So that the rest of the society wouldn’t be destroyed by their wickedness? You have to understand that we believe the nature of sin is entropic.
Atheist: Well I don’t know that I agree with that. We don’t need God.
Christian: You have history and the human ego working against you, you do realize.
Atheist: Well, we have a history of surviving, and that’s enough for me.
Christian: Yeah. I get that. No God present in history means your survival is because of you.
Atheist: Exactly. If we can survive every trial, and flourish for a time, isn’t that enough? Isn’t that prevailing in a sense?
Christian: If by prevailing you mean experiencing temporary success due to factors you can’t explain…
Atheist: Chance is on our side.
Christian: Who is this “chance”? I would like to meet him some day. Oh wait… maybe I know Him, except under a different name.
Atheist: Evolution is something that we can see within history. That’s more than can be said about God.
Christian: In order to have a history, there must be God, don’t you see?
Atheist: No I don’t. Until I see God, I will place my trust in evolution.
Christian: Trust in this evolution if you will, but I will trust in entropy, and the God who wrote history.

Interview with a Theist: Part 2 – Morality

I wrote this yesterday, all in one sitting. It seemed good enough to post. Enjoy!

Christian: So here’s a question. According to your system, where do morals come from?
Atheist: Well they don’t come from anywhere. You’re granting morals some kind of objective existence, when really they are just a convention that is agreed upon to keep a society functioning.
Christian: That’s interesting. Why is it there a need for society to function?
Atheist: Everybody wants to survive, and we all know that ultimately our survival is dependent on whether or not we can trust one another.
Christian: So trust is important towards the the survival as a species, which is also important for some reason.
Atheist: Survival isn’t “important”. We just all happen to want it.
Christian: So you just happen to want something that isn’t important.
Atheist: Well I mean it’s important to me.
Christian: Because you want to live. And you believe that that desire ultimately arose out of evolution?
Atheist: Correct.
Christian: So if murder is tolerated in a society because it can be demonstrated to help the society “survive”, you have no moral qualms with that?
Atheist: Well I certainly wouldn’t want to be a part of that society.
Christian: But you don’t think murder is wrong?
Atheist: I think murdering me is wrong, but only because I value myself.
Christian: And you see nothing wrong with that?
Atheist: No. I mean it seems like an interesting ideal, having an altruistic society. But I can’t say that something less than that ideal is “wrong”.
Christian: I see. So… the holocaust for example. Not objectively wrong?
Atheist: Objectively? No.
Christian: How disturbing. But it makes me wonder… how is it that you can have moral qualms with my certainty in the existence of God, if morals are not objective.
Atheist: I don’t know that it’s moral per se….
Christian: But you were just talking about the “humility” of Atheists. How is that not a moral virtue?
Atheist: Good point. I guess I just don’t like being expected to believe something that is irrational.
Christian: Well the issue isn’t that it’s irrational. Nor that it’s unprovable, as we discussed before.
Atheist: Well how about incorrect.
Christian: Even if I were to grant you that much, why should it matter to you whether what you believe is true?
Atheist: Because truth is important to me.
Christian: I suppose evolution caused that to happen too.
Atheist: As far as I know.
Christian: Do you realize that your worldview reduces all aspects of human experience, including the perception of meaning and value, to incidental biological developments? You’re nothing more than a sophisticated (albeit malfunctioning) machine.
Atheist: That is an unfortunate truth.

Interview with a Theist: Part 1

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the idea of God over the years. I’ve realized that it just doesn’t work to do some kind of treatise on the subject. I’m not even sure that a book would be sufficient. Instead, I wanted to try an internal dialogue, exploring how my thoughts progress organically and lead to certain conclusions.

Being that faith and the idea of God are complex, I want to consider the subject over multiple conversations, each exposing certain elements of the nature of thought and belief. Please don’t expect an immediate all encompassing proof for the existence of God, but bare with the conversation. There will be several more blogs in this series. Thanks.

Atheist: Why do you believe in God?
Christian: Why don’t you?
Atheist: No, you don’t understand. You can’t simply start with belief in God, you have to prove it first.
Christian: Why?
Atheist: Because it’s not obvious that God exists.
Christian: Maybe to you.
Atheist: Well it shouldn’t be to you either.
Christian: Why?
Atheist: Because there isn’t sufficient evidence.
Christian: Evidence of what kind?
Atheist: Empirical evidence.
Christian: Is that really all that’s necessary to prove that something is true?
Atheist: It’s the only means possible to prove anything.
Christian: How do you know that?
Atheist: What do you mean?
Christian: Well, I’m confused by what you just said. I want to understand why it is you believe that something can be sufficiently proven to be true by means of empirical evidence.
Atheist: Well I don’t know that with absolute certainty, but if we’re going to believe in something then that is the only means possible to justify such beliefs.
Christian: I’m confused. Just a moment ago you told me I shouldn’t just belief in God, and yet you have no justification for such an assertion.
Atheist: Ok, what I mean is…. that method by which we reason and come to conclusions about the universe is self evident, it needs no proof.
Christian: So why doesn’t that apply to God?
Atheist: Because it’s not evident to me (and other rational people) that God exists.
Christian: How do you know that’s not your fault?
Atheist: So you’re blaming me for being rational.
Christian: No blaming, inquiring. How exactly does it make a belief rational simply because it is justified empirically? Just a second ago you conceded that your methodology is not proven empirically, but self evident.
Atheist: But you can’t simply declare God as self evident! What is your criteria?!
Christian: Well I feel convicted that God exists… It brings me a sense of joy and meaning in my life. I have trouble making sense of the world without God.
Atheist: That’s just silly. How do you even know that you are convicted about the right God?
Christian: How do you know that you’re convicted about the right logic?
Atheist: What do you mean?
Christian: Well maybe you just happen to use a certain type of logic that seems to work.
Atheist: Huh? How can there be more than one type of logic?
Christian: How can there be more than one type of God?
Atheist: Quit this. You’re avoiding answering my question and playing mind games.
Christian: I feel like I’m the one being interrogated here. I simply think that before you accuse me of being irrational and delusional you should rethink your assumptions.
Atheist: What I’m trying to convey is that atheists stick with a minimal, necessary set of beliefs. We exercise humility in our certainty, and we use stable, trustworthy methods for determining what is true.
Christian: Such as logic and empirical evidence.
Atheist: Exactly, and rigorous testing of our theories.
Christian: What is empirical evidence?
Atheist: Stimuli perceived through the senses.
Christian: And how do you know that the senses are reliable?
Atheist: Because they prove consistent, through our experiences.
Christian: That’s assuming that the past exists, and that the future is based on the past. What proof do you have of such things?
Atheist: Those are self evident as well. And if they weren’t, there would be no way to know anyway, so why try?
Christian: So you’re basically saying that you give up in the trustworthiness of your experiences?
Atheist: Apart from those basic assumptions, yes.
Christian: Which are arbitrary….
Atheist: I suppose on some level.
Christian: Well they aren’t arbitrary for me, because I believe in God. A benevolent God, who intended me to know truth.
Atheist: Don’t kid yourself. Your belief in God is still arbitrary.
Christian: We shall see.

Objectivity

Some time ago I wrote regarding the nature of a multi-dimensional faith. I temporarily removed this entry, because I need time to expand and clarify aspects of it, but I want to reiterate the most basic biblical concepts that I was trying to convey.

More than anything, my recent experiences have demonstrated to me that faith needs to be holistic. We can take the philosophical substance of what it means to be “holistic” by regarding what Jesus says of the dimensions to loving God: Heart, Mind, and Soul. Though the heart and soul may be more subjective, the mind, being privied to the nature of the external world, creates a new perspective in what it means to have a holistic faith: objectivity. There must be a way to objectively demonstrate the existence, nature, and value of God. In this postmodern age, there is a heavy emphasis on subjectivity, but we need to stay balanced. God actually exists, and the world tries to shut Him out of His own universe with fallacious reasoning.

Of course, Paul references the God of general revelation through Romans 1:20:

20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

This is what I’m referring to when I mention a transcendent source that defines reality. It is objectively necessary to have a transcendent definer/determiner/designer of the nature of the universe. Many atheists choose to ignore this fact, or prefer an impersonal, mechanistic origin. But there are certain demonstrable aspects of reality that do not coincide with a purely mechanistic worldview. It is up to us to teach the world of these principles they shut out. This isn’t condescending. It’s necessary, and we must do it lovingly, always remembering that we too are lost in some way.

It is necessary for a Christian to attempt to develop a coherent philosophy. There are certain aspects of philosophy that are more subjective, but others are not. Lacking clear boundaries results in the pantheism of eastern religions, or the panentheism of quantum mechanics, both of which are quite distinct from Christianity in terms of principles. In order to clearly distinguish our faith from others, we need to understand how the deeper principles differ, and we need to be sculpted by such principles.

Something a bit off topic, but worth mentioning anyway, is that every philosophy, inasmuch as it is an attempt to create a modus operandi, is forced to accept the principle of value. Ideas have value, people have value. However, the concept of value, being subjective, has no reference point outside of a sentient mind. Since secular philosophy is meant to be divorced from some kind of “mind” determining the nature of the universe, it can never be logically justified in accepting the idea of value. At best, value is an incidental development of nature. If we consider the concept of value from a logical perspective, it is nothing more than a delusional fantasy in the secular world. This means two things:

1. Those who are consistent with secular thinking naturally gravitate towards despair.
2. Secular thinking is futile in the area of philosophy, and they need to be intellectually honest.

What is God’s Sovereignty?

Before answering the title of this blog, I would first like to consider what man’s sovereignty is. First of all, man is a created (contingent) being. That means that all sovereignty that he has depends on the nature and context of his existence. Man’s sovereignty can thus be qualified as finite, just as man is finite. The means by which sovereignty is determined is will. Finite sovereignty is quite in contrast to infinite sovereignty, which is the doctrine of free will. Man’s will is not free, but bound by the nature of the man, however evil or good a man may be. The ideas of free will and predestination only come in conflict when taken out of context. We are free in relation to the world, but not in relation to ourselves. We are predestined in relation to ourselves, but not in relation to the world. We can “make choices” based on our interactions with the world, but all choices are already built into our nature. We cannot ever make a choice that we wouldn’t make. To assert otherwise is a logical contradiction. God’s sovereignty is infinite. He has absolute control over all things that are and will be. Our finite nature is the means by which God exerts His sovereignty. We cannot help but fulfill God’s will because we are not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnicognizant. We would have to know exactly what God is doing all the time in order to make a judgment contrary to Him.Since we are contingent, it could be said that we are totally dependent upon God’s power for our ability to live, and totally dependent on God’s benevolence (grace) for our ability to live benevolently. To do good, God must give us the ability to do good. In the absence of God, we are totally depraved. This is what the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity refers to. Our responsibility in this structure is to recognize our inability to be cognizant of all of our evil, and our inability to act benevolently all the time. It is not to condemn ourselves or live in guilt and shame (since we are bound by our weakness). God has infinite sovereignty, so we should always bow down to Him out of logical necessity. So what is God’s infinite sovereignty? The answer is that it is not our sovereignty because it is greater than our sovereignty. We cannot understand it any more than that, and we’re not supposed to. It is not necessary to understand the full details of being infinite if we aren’t infinite. We need only admit to our weakness, and request faith and salvation from Jesus. Let us always remember, however, that we are admitting to our weakness, not choosing to be saved. Only God chooses salvation, because only God is sovereign. Amen.